Nji CA Judges Learners

2ND INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON THE TRAINING OF THE JUDICIARY
JUDGES AS LEARNERS
Reflections on Principle and Practice
Livingston Armytage1
CENTRE FOR JUDICIAL STUDIES
<www.educatingjudges.com>
©
4 November 2004
Abstract
This paper provides a model of judicial education and training. The model is constructed
from an assessment of the application of educational theory and principle to the
endeavour of educating judges. The practice of international experience is then reviewed
in five case studies to identify common challenges in judicial education around the world.
Finally, the paper develops some practical guidelines and tools to assist courts to
develop and train judicial trainers.
Over the past twenty-five years, judicial education has emerged as an important new
means to develop judicial competence and improve the quality of justice and
performance of courts in many countries. As illustrated in France, the United States,
Britain, Australia, Pakistan, the Philippines, Mongolia and Papua New Guinea, judicial
education is now becoming established as an integral element in judicial development.
It is now timely to review this experience. The introduction of formalised judicial

education addresses the dual needs to improve the professional competence of judges
and the institutional needs for the judiciary to consolidate its independence by
demonstrating an accountability for performance enhancement.
Judicial learning is a complex process. Judges epitomize adult learners. Judges are also
professionals by training, career practice, and self-image. Moreover, judges as learners
exhibit characteristics, styles and practices which are distinctive, and which have direct
and important implications for educators.
These learning characteristics arise from the process and criteria of judicial selection,
the formative nature of the judicial role, doctrinal constraints relating to the imperative to
preserve judicial independence, the environment surrounding judicial office, and the
specific needs of judges. In addition, there is emerging evidence to suggest that judges
as a profession exhibit preferred learning styles and utilize preferred learning practices
developed over the course of their careers.
Judges as learners are characterised as being rigorously autonomous, having an

intensely short-term problem-orientation, and being exceptionally motivated to pursue
competence for its own sake rather than for promotion or material gain; those appointed
within a merit system, in particular, may also generally represent a professional elite
possessing extraordinary levels of pre-existing professional competence. These insights
directly affect how we should go about educating judges so that judicial education can
assume its full potential as an agent for performance improvement.
The paper assesses how these considerations affect the application of educational
theory to judges in the light of the experience of practice, and offers insights on
developing a model of court-owned and judge-led training to build competence
specifically in judicial skills and outlook, and facilitate a process of self-directed learning
and critical self-reflection. Critical elements in this model include governance structure,
strategic and activity planning, involvement of civil society, educationally-sound
curriculum, and the establishment of judicial training faculty. The paper outlines the
elements of faculty development, and provides a judicial training inventory, a curriculum-
planning matrix, and the framework for a trainers’ handbook.
ii
Contents
1 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 1
2 RATIONALE.............................................................................................................. 2
Mission and objectives............................................................................................... 3
3 JUDGES AS LEARNERS ......................................................................................... 5
Adult Learning............................................................................................................ 5
Continuing professional development........................................................................ 6
Judicial disposition..................................................................................................... 7
Judges as Distinctive Learners.................................................................................. 8
Model of judicial education ........................................................................................ 9
4 REVIEW OF EXPERIENCE – LESSONS LEARNED ............................................. 11
Challenges............................................................................................................... 12
5 MODEL GUIDELINES OF PRACTICE ................................................................... 15
6 OBSERVATIONS .................................................................................................... 16
a Juristic model .................................................................................................. 16
b Leadership....................................................................................................... 17
c Ownership ....................................................................................................... 17
d Client focus...................................................................................................... 18
e Needs .............................................................................................................. 18
f Mission and objectives .................................................................................... 19
g Resources ....................................................................................................... 20
h Curriculum ....................................................................................................... 20
i Training of trainers .......................................................................................... 23
j Monitoring and evaluation ............................................................................... 27
ANNEX - CASE STUDIES.............................................................................................. 29
A AUSTRALIA .................................................................................................... 29
B BRITAIN .......................................................................................................... 36
C PAKISTAN....................................................................................................... 39
D PHILIPPINES .................................................................................................. 44
E MONGOLIA ..................................................................................................... 47
ENDNOTES .................................................................................................................... 51
iii
1 INTRODUCTION
It is timely and useful to survey the context and experience of judicial education and
training around the world since its inception less than fifty years ago. It is interesting to
observe that while justice may be as old as Socrates, research indicates that the notion
of formalised judicial education was first introduced in the early 1960’s. Earlier, training
was either unstructured or unformalised in on-the-bench judicial apprenticeship and
mentoring. Since then, the steady spread of a more formalized approach can be
observed throughout the jurisprudential world, across common law and civil systems,
across continents and nations of diverse tradition, ideology and culture, in developed
and developing economies, and transitional and post-conflict states.
In developed countries, the institutionalization of judicial education is very recent, and

commenced with the establishment of The École Nationale de la Magistrature in France
in 1958. Shortly after, the National Judicial College was established in the United States
in 1963 and the Federal Judicial Center in 1967 under the leadership of Chief Justice
Warren Berger. The first sentencing workshop was conducted by Lord Parker in the
United Kingdom also in 1963, and the Judicial Studies Board commenced operation in
1979. The Canadian Judicial Council conducted its first training session in 1972, and
the Canadian Judicial Institute was established in 1988.2 The Australian Institute of
Judicial Administration was established in 1975, and the Judicial Commission of New
South Wales in 1986. The Commonwealth Judicial Education Institute was formed in
1994.3
In developing countries, the trend is similar. For example, in Pakistan, judicial education
was initially recommended in 1959, though it was not until 1988 that the Federal Judicial
Academy was established. In the Philippines, the Philippines Judicial Academy was
established in 1996 under the leadership of Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr. In
Mongolia, the National Legal Training Centre commenced judicial training in 2000. In
Uzbekistan, the judicial leadership is presently considering introducing a system of
judicial training.
Over the past decade in particular, this trend has been embraced by international
development, and it has become increasingly common for multilateral and bilateral
donors to sponsor judicial education and training projects as sub-objectives of broader
program strategies to strengthen governance systems and the rule of law around the
world. Most recently, in the “9/11” environment, this trend has increased exponentially as
an element in radically restructured global strategies to improve safety and security and
to counter terrorism. Unprecedented investments are now being directed into this sector
by international donors.
A case-study to illustrate this growth is Papua New Guinea, a small country of some 6
million people, which confronts many of the challenges of new states establishing
systems of governance and economic wellbeing, including a serious law and order
problem. Granted independence in 1975, PNG received its first major foreign aid in 1990
with a ten million dollar 3-year grant to strengthen the Constabulary. In 2002, this aid
was restructured into a law and justice sector-based program – or SWAp – integrating
police, prosecutions, policy, courts, prisons and ombudsman, valued at A$100m. In
2004, this program was again restructured into what is called the Enhanced Cooperation
Program, estimated at a value of more than A$1B. This represents a massive growth of
Judges as Learners- Reflections of Principle and Practice Armytage L, 2004 1

x100-fold into the sector in little more than one decade. Judicial education and training
comprise an element of this development. This example is hardly unique, when we
consider similar but much larger investments being made in Iraq and Afghanistan at the
present time.
To illustrate this growth in another way, there are now many more projects of judicial
education and training than ever before. The World Bank estimates that it is financing
some 600 projects relating to legal and judicial reform, ranging from Mongolia to
Guatemala, Togo, Zambia and Cambodia.4 It describes judicial training as a critical
element in promoting sustainable economic development, through consolidating judicial
independence, with the objective of not only improving knowledge, but also changing
attitudes towards impartiality, integrity and potential bias.5 These span many aspects of
law development and structural reform, including and often supported by judicial
education and training. Other major multilateral donors such as the Asian Development
Bank and United Nations conduct similar programs. Numerous bilateral agencies of
national governments, such as USAID (United States), DFID (UK), JIKA (Japan) and
GTZ (Germany) manage robust bilateral aid programs. Some smaller agencies, such as
DANIDA (Denmark), focus relatively heavily in judicial education in particular. Over just
the past decade alone, I personally have worked in judicial development and training
programs involving some twenty countries.6
Clearly, judicial education has experienced an extraordinary growth in recent years,

described by one commentator as an explosion.7 It is already a public international
investment valued in billions of dollars. Subject to positive results or return on this
massive investment becoming evident in the short to medium term, this is likely to
increase potentially significantly in the immediate future.
So, it is most judicious to reflect on the wealth of this experience with the view to
distilling some lessons learned and guidelines for ongoing endeavour.
2 RATIONALE
Recognition of the need for judicial education is now firmly established in many
jurisdictions around the world. There are various reasons for the emergence of judicial
education. The major rationales for judicial education include independence, improved
service delivery, social accountability, and institutional capacity-building.
Most important, there is a doctrinal imperative to strengthen the capacity and

independence of the judiciary as a formative institution in its society. Judicial education
provides the judiciary with the means to consolidate its independence. This is of
paramount concern where the judiciary is constitutionally responsible to dispense justice
by interpreting and applying the law of the land to any matters in dispute which are
brought before the courts. Central to this role of dispensing justice is the need for
fairness: that the law is being applied fairly and evenly to both parties in any dispute. Not
only must the courts be fair; but they must also appear to be fair in order to establish
credibility and secure the confidence of the community in its integrity. Credibility rests on
visible independence: independence from any vested interest whatsoever – whether that
be governmental, commercial or personal. . With judicial independence comes the need
for accountability and transparency on the part of the judiciary. Judicial education and
training provides the means for the judiciary as an institution to consolidate, develop and
perform this crucial, yet fragile, role in society. Recognition of this need is reflected in the
observation of Nicholson:

Judicial education is now an accepted part of judicial life in many countries. It is
an enhancement of the mental qualities necessary to the preservation of judicial
independence .... Judicial independence requires that the judicial branch is
accountable for its competency and the proposition is now accepted as beyond
debate.8
As a part of the building of independence, judicial education assists the judiciary to

professionalise and to improve service delivery, by improving its competence. This
provides the judiciary with a visible means of social accountability to address mounting
consumer dissatisfaction with judicial services, which historically was a prominent
“driver” for the introduction of judicial education in developed countries in the post WW2
period.
Moreover, the rationale for a judiciary to invest in training of trainers is to develop its own
capacity to manage judicial competence and standards in a sustainable manner.
Mission and objectives

The mission of any continuing judicial education is to improve the quality of judicial
performance by helping judges to acquire the tools for professional competence. The
concept of competence illuminates the issue of what makes a good judge. It includes
mastery of theoretical knowledge, developing problem-solving capacity, cultivating
collegiate identity, relating to allied professionals, conceptualizing the judicial mission,
maintaining an ethical practice and self-enhancement. At an operational level, the goals
and objectives of judicial education are to meet the education, training, and development
needs of judicial officers. These needs are defined through a variety of analysis
techniques and then addressed through the provision of specific education services.9
In 1992, the National Association of States Judicial Educators in the United States
published some Principles and Standards of Continuing Judicial Education. These
Principles and Standards define the goal of judicial education to be:-
to maintain and improve the professional competency of all persons performing

judicial functions, thereby enhancing the performance of the judicial system as a
whole.10
They outline the objectives of judicial education to be:-
to assist judges acquire the knowledge, skills and attitudes required to perform
their judicial responsibilities fairly, correctly and efficiently; to promote judges'
adherence to the highest standards of personal and official conduct; to preserve
the integrity and impartiality of the judicial system through elimination of bias and
prejudice, and the appearance of bias and prejudice; to promote effective court
practice and procedures; to improve the administration of justice; to enhance
public confidence in the judicial system.11
Continuing judicial education is now accepted as an "integral and essential part" of the
judicial system of the United States.12 Indeed, it is increasingly seen as a basic
necessity, made so by pressures of workload, the size of courts, the complexity of
modern judicial programming and the invasion of technology.13 In relation to the
development of judicial education, Catlin has observed:

Lawyers don't become good judges by the wave of a magic wand. Not even the
best lawyers. To reappear behind the bench as a skilled jurist is a tricky
manoeuvre. Going from adversary to adjudicator means changing one's attitude,
learning and using new skills, and in some cases severing old ties. In many
jurisdictions, judges must learn their new roles by the seat of their pants. In
Michigan though, both new and veteran judges are trained extensively.14
Recognition of the need for continuing education by the judiciary – as a profession -

comprises three principal components, being:
• new judge transition - to train and educate new appointees to assume office,
to facilitate the transition from advocate to adjudicator, and to bridge the gap
between inexperience and experience
• continuing education - to facilitate the ongoing professional development of
judicial officers and to keep them abreast of change
• ongoing development - to a considerably lesser degree, to address other
career or personal development needs.15
Since 1986, all states have provided some form of education for judges, and judicial
education was well established. Most state programs are in fact mandatory. The average
number of training leave days allowed for education and training is approximately five
per year. Hudzik observes:
The most striking trend of the last twenty years in continuing judicial education is
its virtual spread throughout the United States and its emergence as a big
business.16
Judicial education has also become increasingly accepted in Britain over recent years,
where the Judicial Studies Board has observed that,
Judicial studies are no longer a novelty .... No competent and conscientious

occupant of any post would suggest that his performance is incapable of being
improved, and, since there is a limit to what can be done simply by self
improvement, almost all judges are able to perceive the need for organized
means of enhancing performance.17
By 1995, this position had dramatically consolidated, when Lord Justice Henry reported
what he described as a "sea-change in judicial attitudes to training over the past 25 to 30
years." He added, "judges have accepted, appreciated, and benefited from training in a
way that has confounded the sceptics."18 This is confirmed by Partington:
Twenty years ago, a majority of judges would have denied there was any need
for training. Today only a minority would share that view.19
In Australia, judicial education is similarly established and, in the words of Sallmann,

"heralds the advent of potentially significant changes in the Australian judicial culture."20
Traditionally, judicial education was non-existent in any formalized sense and relied
heavily, in the words of one senior judge, on "the gifted amateur."21 More recently, in the
words of Chief Justice Mason:

[In the past] new judges were expected somehow to acquire almost overnight the
requisite knowledge of how to be a judge. Perhaps it was thought that judicial
know-how was absorbed by a process of osmosis ... One of the myths of our
legal culture was that the barrister by dint of his or her long experience as a
advocate in the courts was equipped to conduct a trial in any jurisdiction.22
3 JUDGES AS LEARNERS
Judicial education and training build on the foundation of educational theory or pedagogy
which is refined, first, through the application of principles of adult learning, secondly,
through the practice of professional development and, thirdly, through the formulation of
a distinctive model of judicial learning.
Adult Learning
In broad terms, judges epitomize adult learners. Adult learning is a complex

phenomenon. Learning is the process whereby knowledge is created through the
transformation of experience. While it shares commonalities with childhood learning,
there are at the same time substantial differences. The adult's independent self-concept,
ability to be a self-directed learner, readiness, and orientation to learning are interactive
factors that help explain not only the great diversity among adult learners, but also many
of the commonalities.23
The education of judges, as adults, is different to that of children, and places particular
importance on the need for autonomy and relevance in the adult learning process.
There is a broadly-held consensus among educational theorists, commentators and
practitioners that adults do learn in a manner which is distinctive to children. The
principles of adult learning should lie at the foundations for any program of judicial
education. These principles recognise the distinctive nature of adult learning which
Knowles has defined as being characterized by its autonomy, self-direction, preference
to build on personal experience, the need to perceive relevance through immediacy of
application, its purposive nature, and its problem-orientation.24 Put another way,
Brookfield argues that adults learn throughout their lives:
As a rule, however, they like their learning activities to be problem centred and to
be meaningful to their life situations, and they want the learning outcomes to
have some immediacy of application. The past experiences of adults affect their
current learning .... Finally, adults exhibit a tendency towards self-directedness in
their learning.25
The application of learning theory, specifically humanistic and developmental

explanations of learning, provides a range of useful insights on the process of judicial
learning, for example, in the observations of Cross:
It does make sense to argue that, generally speaking, humanist theory appears
relevant to learning self-understanding; behaviourism seems useful in teaching
practical skills; and developmental theory has much to offer to goals of teaching
ego, intellectual or moral development.26
Adults participate in continuing education for a variety of reasons: to become a better

informed person, prepare for a new job, improve present job abilities, spend spare time

enjoyably, meet interesting people, carry out everyday tasks, and get away from daily
routine:
The major emphasis in adult learning is on the practical rather that on the
academic; on the applied rather than the theoretical; and on skills rather than on
knowledge or information.27
Continuing professional development
Judicial education has much to learn usefully from the practice of continuing professional
development because judges are professionals by training, career practice, and self-
image.
Houle argues that the way in which professionals learn requires the development of a
specific professional education which involves a separate body of knowledge, inquiry,
research and practice.28 This has been frequently endorsed by subsequent theorists.29
Houle demonstrates that professionals' reasons for participation in continuing education
generally tend to be more refined than those of adults at large, and are usually job
related. Professionals participate for functional purposes rather than for the sake of
learning per se, and focus more closely on the job relationship and career development;
for most professionals, continuing education is seen as a means to assist them with new
duties or to prepare them for promotion.30
Cervero agrees that the study of professional learners builds on general adult learning
theory to develop its own distinctive practice:
Members of a specific profession are like all other adults [sic] in that they share
basic human processes such as motivation, cognition, and emotions, like some
other adults in that they belong to a profession, and like no other adults in that
they belong to a particular profession. Each frame of reference implies important
dimensions that need to be taken into account in the practice of continuing
professional education.31
Schon, in developing a model of professional knowledge, argues that the context of a

professional practice is significantly different from other contexts for the purpose of
learning and education. Schon identifies the characteristics of professional practice. He
argues that professionals,
share conventions of action that include distinctive media, languages and tools.
They operate within particular kinds of institutional settings - the law court, the
school .... Their practices are structured in particular kinds of units of activity ...
and [are] made up of chunks of activity, divisible into more or less familiar types,
each of which is seen as calling for the exercise of a certain kind of knowledge.32
Cross describes professional people as being among the most active self-directed
learners in society. This is due in part to the patterns of learning developed in attaining
and retaining membership in a profession, and in part to the nature of the professional
role itself. She argues that professionals have highly focused problems; they usually
know what they need to learn, and consequently any general course will probably
contain much that is redundant or irrelevant to the problem-orientated learner. Cross
observes that:

A corollary to the assumption that adults are largely problem-orientated learners
is that the more sharply the potential learner has managed to define the problem,
the less satisfactory traditional classes will be.33
In essence, professionals exhibit certain general characteristics as learners which are

distinctive: they are more active, career-related and self-directed as learners than adults
at large. Each profession, Schon argues, has a systematic knowledge base with four
essential properties: "It is specialized, firmly bounded, scientific and standardized.”34
Cervero argues that continuing professional development should be seen as a self-

managed process giving the individual ultimate control over his or her long-term learning
and growth. His observations highlight the difference between education based on the
delivery of declarative knowledge (knowing what) and procedural knowledge (knowing
how), and reveals a contradiction in the practice of judicial education. The application of
facilitated learning is specifically applicable to professionals. While recognizing the
importance of facilitation in adult education and need for adults to assume self
responsibility for their own learning,
[I]t is evident that professionals require guidance and assistance in structuring

their continuing professional education so that it will, in fact, benefit their
practice.35
Self-managed professional development requires both the learner and the educator to
rethink their roles and goals, and is a logical consequence of the application of adult
learning theory to continuing professional education and, in turn, to judicial education.
The precise nature of this application is affected by the characteristics of judges as
learners, the assumptions of competence which can be reasonably inferred from the
appointment process, the continuing education needs of judges, the features of judicial
tenure in terms of career development, and the environment surrounding the office of
judge in society. Each of these factors plays a role in the development of any program of
continuing education for judges and has an impact on its character.
Within this understanding of the process of adult and professional learning, any
paradigm of formalized judicial education should be seen, primarily, as a process of
facilitation based on self-directed learning rather than an authoritarian model of teaching.
Judicial disposition
Within the framework of adult and professional education outlined above, it is possible to
identify characteristics and practices of judges as learners which give rise to the need to
pose a particular model of judicial education. There are significant differences between
judges and other professionals in their motivations and perceived needs for continuing
education.
Catlin, for example, has found that appointment to judicial office and the environment
surrounding judicial tenure – in the United States, at least - created educational needs
distinct from other professionals.36 These distinctive features related in particular to the
motivational factors in continuing learning. Judges ranked personal benefits,
professional advancement and job security significantly lower than other professionals
such as physicians and veterinarians.37 This is consistent with judges perceiving
themselves as public officials, now behaving differently from professionals in the private
sector. Catlin observes that "the difference appears most dramatic when the reward

system is examined."38 Judges may participate to develop new skills in order to be more
competent, but not to increase their income; thus, the development of competence, in
the case of the judge, must be a reward in itself.
The lack of importance of personal benefits, professional advancement and job security
has "serious implications" for purposes of planning education programs; comparisons
between groups suggest that for judges the concept of judicial competence is a much
broader factor than professional service; in addition, judges operate in an environment
where there is a lack of any distinctly identifiable patient or client relationship.39
Added to this, the circumstances characterizing the process of appointment on merit to

judicial office, in terms of the formal and informal criteria of selection, arguably have an
impact on the type of person - and even personality types - selected for appointment;
these circumstances may also have an impact on the preferred learning styles of those
successful advocates who are likely to be considered for appointment to the bench, and
thus on preferred forms of education. Herrmann, for example, argues that there is
empirical evidence that the preferred learning styles of judges and lawyers tend to be
"left brained;" that is, logical, analytical, problem-solving, controlled, conservative and
organizational.40
The distinctive elements of continuing judicial learning include judges' motivation to learn
and their perception on the need to learn, learning practices predicated on the process
of judicial selection, and their preferred learning styles. These elements are important
distinguishing features in terms of any program of continuing judicial education, and
have significant implications on both the content and the process of any program of
continuing judicial education.
Judges as Distinctive Learners
It follows from this discussion that the characteristics of judges as learners are distinctive
in a number of ways that are significant for educators. These characteristics arise from
four factors relating to selection, learning preferences, doctrinal constraints and
perceived learning needs.
i Judicial appointment and tenure
The process of selection determines appointment to judicial office, and establishes a

particular threshold of pre-existing competencies in legal knowledge and skills.
Consequently, it is generally valid to claim that judges appointed on merit are likely to
possess extraordinarily high levels of pre-existing professional competence, in terms of
their knowledge of the law. In addition, Catlin has demonstrated that the distinctive
nature of judicial tenure, specifically, its security and lack of promotional opportunity,
have implications of systemic influences affecting individual judges' motivation to learn,
and place them in a different position to many other professionals who operate in
working environments which lack these features.

ii Preferred learning styles and practices
There is emerging evidence of judges as a profession exhibiting preferred learning

styles, and utilizing preferred learning practices developed over the course of their
careers. Judges are generally autonomous, entirely self-directed, and exhibit an
intensely short-term problem-orientation in their preferred learning practices. Moreover,
clinical experience tends to suggest that Schon's approach to professional learning is
apposite to judges' continuing learning and should, as a result, form an active element in
any process of continuing judicial education.
iii Doctrinal constraints of judicial independence
It is imperative to preserve judicial independence within any Westminster system of

government. The doctrinal significance of this precept has been seen to be highly
influential in any judicial approach to the notion of continuing education. It follows that
educators should make efforts to ensure that judges recognize the independence and
integrity of the process in order to appease any concerns of possible indoctrination.
Equally, the formative nature of the judicial role can create discomfort for some judges
under conditions which could possibly be seen to erode the authority of their role. Both
these considerations contribute to the need for an independent, discrete process of
education.
iv Reasons for participating in continuing education
Judges' reasons for participating in judicial education have been discussed above, and
further below.41
In effect, the learning needs, practices, preferences and constraints of judges are quite
distinctive, for a number of professional, educational and doctrinal reasons. More
specifically, the learning needs of judges are in certain respects quite particular, relating
both to the nature and content of the learning, and to the education process supporting
that learning.
Model of judicial education
These considerations give rise to the need to develop a distinctive model of judicial
education. This model should be based on foundations of adult learning and professional
development, and also reflect the distinctive characteristics of judges as learners.
Judicial learning is a complex process. Judges, as professionals, exhibit characteristics,

styles and practices as learners which are distinctive, significant and have direct
important implications for educators. As has been seen, these arise from:
• doctrinal imperative to preserve judicial independence

• process and criteria of judicial selection, and the nature of tenure
• formative nature of the judicial role and the environment surrounding office,
• judges' learning needs and reasons for participating in continuing education.
• preferred learning styles and practices.
As already discussed, the pursuit of competence is a crucial element in the rationale to

consolidate judicial independence, and it provides a means of professional accountability
to society.

The process of selection determines appointment to judicial office, and establishes a
particular threshold of pre-existing competencies in legal knowledge and skills. This
threshold defines the point-of-departure for ongoing judicial induction and in-service
training, in terms of knowledge of the law and practice. The nature of judicial tenure also
has implications of systemic influences affecting individual judges' motivation to learn.
The essence of judging is a highly complex, intellectual, problem-solving process which

resists procedural description or predictable outcomes. In practice, judges place greater
value on self-directed learning than perhaps any other professional discipline.
There is emerging evidence based on clinical experience that judges exhibit preferred
learning styles, and utilize preferred learning practices developed over the course of
their careers. Judges – at least in developed jurisdictions - are characterised as being
rigorously autonomous, entirely self-directed, exhibit an intensely short-term problem-
orientation, and are exceptionally motivated to pursue competence for its own sake in
their learning practices rather than for promotion or material gain. Those appointed
within a merit system may also generally represent a professional elite possessing
extraordinarily levels of pre-existing professional competence which defines the
threshold for any ongoing program of continuing education.
Judges' reasons for participating in judicial education have also been documented,
notably in certain developed jurisdictions, disclosing that judges as a professional group
place high importance on the reasons for participation which are related to keeping
abreast of new developments in the law, being competent in their judicial work, matching
their knowledge and skills with the demand for their judicial activities and improving their
ability to better respond to the questions of law presented to them.42 Judges' reasons for
participation were found to be multidimensional and more complex than might previously
have been believed. Three factors emerged from representing the underlying
dimensions of the respondents' reasons for participation. They were, in order of
importance, judicial competence, collegial interaction, and professional perspective:
a judicial competence - the need to maintain an acceptable level of competence

and develop new judicial skills, to develop proficiencies necessary to maintain quality
performance, and to keep abreast of new developments are all regarded as very
important reasons. The emergence of the judicial competence factor in these findings
suggests that judges do place significant importance on maintaining and developing their
professional skills and keeping abreast of the law.
b collegial interaction - relates to the need for interaction, exchange of ideas and
thoughts, and to be challenged by the thinking of colleagues. This suggests that program
design must allow adequate time for judges to constructively interact and learn from their
colleagues through a variety of structured educational experiences including problem-
solving workshops, and small group discussions.
c professional perspective - items included in this factor are associated with the
professional role of the judge, such as to assess the direction their profession and to
maintain identity with their profession. This suggests that judges participate to reinforce
their identity in that profession, and that judges see the opportunity to develop a
perspective of their professional role, review their commitment to their profession and
develop leadership capabilities in their profession through participation in continuing
judicial education.

These considerations affect the application of educational theory to judges in a number
of significant ways. For example, in some developed merit-based judicial systems, the
application of adult and professional education practice should be modified for judicial
learners to embody the particular importance of peer leadership in the education
process, procedural knowledge ("knowing how," as opposed to "knowing what") and the
facilitation of individualized learning. In other systems, these considerations may affect
the application of educational principles in different ways, though this remains be
assessed and documented.43
4 REVIEW OF EXPERIENCE – LESSONS LEARNED
The purpose of this section is to review relevant international experience in the form of
some case studies on institutionalizing judicial education in various countries, with the
view to promoting a judicial education approach capable of providing career-long
continuing judicial education around the world.
The study distils the empirical experience of programs of judicial education and training
in a selection of brief case studies of Australia, Britain, Pakistan, Philippines and
Mongolia on the establishment of judicial education institutions in those countries that
have, for diverse reasons, decided to make efforts to significantly improve judicial
education. These case studies are extracted in the annex to this paper. It identifies some
critical elements of developing program strategy and approach to ensure that the judicial
training institution does provide training services which are effective in supporting the
judiciary to perform its role. Observations on this experience are then used to develop a
strategic approach enumerated in guidelines on the establishment and
institutionalization of judicial education.
As illustrated in these case studies, judicial education is now starting to play a significant
and dynamic role in improving judicial competence and thereby the quality of justice
through the promotion of rule of law: free and fair trial, the consolidation of judicial
identity and independence, and the consolidation of legal rights.
This experience demonstrates that the rationale for investing in judicial education and
training is two-fold: (a) to develop the professional competence of the judiciary to
perform its duties and, thereby (b) to improve judicial service delivery. In doing so, courts
around the world have responded to consumer dissatisfaction with quality of services by
addressing the need to become more accountable and to make an effective commitment
to enhance performance.
The survey of available curricula reveals that programs of continuing judicial education
generally comprise two major components: first, pre-service or induction training meets
the need to train and educate new judges to assume office, to facilitate the transition
from advocate to adjudicator, and to bridge the gap between inexperience and
experience. Second, in-service or continuing education meets the further need to
facilitate the ongoing professional development of more experienced judges to keep
abreast of change and to acquire specialized competences.
Analysis of this experience indicates that the mission of judicial education is usually to
improve the quality of judicial performance by helping judges to acquire the tools for
professional competence. The notion of competence, as the goal of judicial education, is
central to professional development. Judicial competence can be variously defined but,

for practical purposes, involves three distinct components (a) mastery of legal
knowledge, (b) development of professional skills, and (c) acquisition of judicial
disposition. In all case studies, the goal of judicial education is to enhance the quality of
justice by raising the professional competence of judges to deliver service to their
communities.
Challenges
Notable throughout this experience has been the commonality of challenges confronting
the proponents for judicial development and training, which have included:
a. developing effective partnerships with the executive

b. instilling judicial leadership, ownership and engagement
c. building sustainability with adequate resourcing
d. collaborating with educators to develop technically sound programs
e. integrating training with broader sector-wide strategies
f. investing in rigorous monitoring and evaluation.
As has been said, in order to address these challenges, judicial education and training
should be judge-led and court-owned. There are three overarching reasons for this: (a)
within the doctrinal context, there is an imperative to consolidate judicial independence
from erosion or dependence on the executive arm of government or other external
interests; b) within the pedagogical context, judge-led training brings educational
authenticity and crucial know-how to the process; put most simply, judges know their
training needs better than anyone else; (c) within the development context, the
paramount reason is sustainability; investing in Training-of-Trainers (ToT) will instill the
capacity of judiciaries in transitional jurisdictions to direct and conduct their ongoing
training needs in the medium- to long-term. 44 In addition, any program of judicial
education should be developed to address the distinctive learning characteristics of
judges as professionals in order to be educationally effective.
Analysis of case study experience leads to the emergence of certain common themes
which may have application for courts around the world. In summary, these themes
include the following:
• Independence and autonomy – it is essential to ensure that the judicial training

institution is led by the judiciary rather than the executive to avoid the constraints
in independent decision-making. Similarly, there is a need to delegate as much
financial autonomy (accompanied by accountability) as possible in order to
consolidate judicial independence, elicit ownership and buy-in from the judiciary,
and enable the institution to deliver the training which the judiciary perceives it
needs. Constraints in the independence and financial autonomy of institutions
have limited the scope of training services available to the judiciary in Mongolia,
Pakistan and additionally the Philippines. While it is recognized that there is
usually a shortage of financial resources available for training purposes, it may
be observed that independent judicial training institutions are more likely to be
actively supported by donor bodies in the interests of good governance.
The impact of a lack of independence is seen in the constraints which exist in

judicial autonomy to determine its own program of training. In practice, the
judicial training institution must not only secure the endorsement of the judicial
leadership to its proposed program of training activities, but this must also be

agreed by representatives of the executive. This places the judiciary in an
unsustainable position of subservience in the decision-making process. The
legacy of this subservience is all-pervasive and should be avoided from the
outset through the establishment and composition of court-owned and judge-led
governance structures if at all possible.
• Ownership – as seen in Australia and Britain, the viability and utility of any
program of judicial education rests on it becoming accepted by the judiciary as
being court-owned and judge-led. There are many useful structures, mechanisms
and processes to strengthen this sense of ownership which have been
developed around the world. These include judicial leadership in the governance
structure, representation and participation in oversight committees and courts’
education committees, and active consultative processes in assessing needs,
planning activities, and establishing a core faculty of judge trainers.
• Governance structure – In addition to embedding the leadership and

representation of the judiciary, experience in the Philippines, Britain and Australia
indicates that representation of community interest and educational expertise in
the governance structure is appropriate in informing policy-based decision-
making.
• Judicial leadership through training faculty – It is a universal feature of

experience that judges prefer other judges to act as their trainers because they
are recognized as having the relevant experience and insight on the subject.
Judge trainers are seen as authentic and as practitioners, rather than theorists.
They do however need training in presentation skills, and Training-of-Trainers
courses are offered by the training institutions. A further problem which is
encountered in Pakistan is enabling talented judges to serve on the core faculty
of trainers by amending the judicial service rules so that judges can serve as
training faculty without losing seniority.
• Resources and financial viability – It is a relatively universal feature of judicial

education around the world that there is a shortage of financial resources. Such
shortages are likely to define the operating environment of those training
institutions. That said, the critical issue is how those resources are allocated and
managed. The Philippines Judicial Academy (PHILJA), like the Federal Judicial
Academy (FJA) in Pakistan, the National Legal Centre (NLC) in Mongolia and
other institutions, is constrained by this problem. The solution to the challenge of
financial constraint is found in the strategic outlook and managerial direction of
available resources to ensure that priorities are identified and addressed in an
educationally effective manner as outlined in Part B of this paper. Moreover,
because of endemic shortages of resources available for judicial training, resort
should be made to existing resources whenever available and appropriate, as is
the case in Mongolia where the NLC training facility is shared with lawyers. A
related issue is ensuring adequate resources are available for distant courts to
participate in training programs. While it is doubtless cheaper to establish a
single centralized body to provide training services, this approach transfers the
invisible burden of funding the recurrent logistical costs of travel and
accommodation of training judges to provincial or distant courts, and often
creates a significant invisible barrier to participation in practice for courts with no
training budgets, as is the case in Pakistan. The solution to this problem is to
ensure that recurrent funding for travel and accommodation is adequately

provisioned. This provisioning should be centrally allocated to the training
institution to ensure coordination in the application of funding. This will enable the
national judicial training program to, for example, provide allowances for the
travel/accommodation of distant judges and prevent funding being spent on
unrelated provincial purposes.
• Organizational mission and structure – It is important that the mission of the

training institution specifies its purpose with sufficient direction to promote judicial
competence, and identifies specific objectives and services in order to guide and
inform the management and operations of the institution. In the Philippines, a
lack of clear definition and delegation of responsibilities impedes efficient
management and the expeditious delivery of training services.
• Participation policy – Approaches to participation vary from country to country.

For example, the Australian approach to participation is voluntary, supported by
active encouragement from the leadership, and an emphasis on designing
practical training services which entice judges to attend because it makes their
job easier. Other countries, such as the United States, have mandated
participation. While this is clearly a policy-based decision for the judicial
leadership, it may be considered by the judicial authorities that it is more
culturally-appropriate at this time to mandate participation.
• Accessibility and use of information technology (IT)-based delivery media – as

seen in Pakistan and the Philippines, active steps are required to ensure the
accessibility of any centrally-based training initiative in terms of enabling the
participation of judges from regional areas by dismantling financial disincentives,
delivering training in decentralized activities, and using web-based instructional
media to overcome problems of distance.
• Sensitization – A common feature confronting the introduction of judicial training

programs is an initial reluctance of some judges to recognize the need for or
benefits of judicial training. Deeply held sensitivities relating to judges’
perceptions of the need and usefulness for continuing education must be
addressed on judges’ terms, and this may take time. Moreover, judicial training
must be shown to be led by the judiciary itself, rather than externally imposed by
the executive as this undermines judicial independence and is likely to be
obstructed by judges themselves. This was certainly the case in both Britain and
Australia where there were also suspicions that it may be an intrusion on
independence by the executive. Experience in both countries has demonstrated
that these sensitivities can be satisfactorily overcome during the establishment
period through the provision of court-owned and judge-led practical training
which helps judges to do their job on a day-to-day basis.
• Practicality:- competency-based approach – As observed recently in Pakistan, as

elsewhere, there is an increasing trend towards the development of competency-
based judicial training which in addition to transmitting information on law and
procedure, develops the practical skills and professional attitudes of good judging
and is directed towards improving both personal and institutional performance.

5 MODEL GUIDELINES OF PRACTICE
From this review of international experience, it is possible to offer some guidelines for the
consideration of a court introducing programs of continuing education. These include:
1. develop and standardize programs of induction training and continuing judicial

education which are court-owned and judge-led, and provide a range of
conferences, seminars, workshops and paper-based and electronic publications
that are practical, address the needs of judges for competency and skills-based
development, and improve judicial performance.
2. develop strategic and activity plans to define the goals and objectives of its
program of judicial education, and the priorities, structure and content of its
curriculum and services.
3. establish a governance structure, or council, for the judicial training body to be

chaired by the Chief Justice, and include representatives of the judiciary,
educational experts and community interests.
4. consider whether continuing judicial education should be voluntary, court-

endorsed or mandatory.
5. involve members of the judiciary in the planning, establishment, management

and evaluation of the judicial training program.
6. conduct a comprehensive training needs analysis, which includes active

consultation with representatives of the legal profession, business community
and representatives of civil society.
7. undertake an assessment of the resources available and needed to establish and

implement the program of continuing judicial education, including fixed
infrastructure, human resources and recurrent budget requirements.
8. use existing resources wherever relevant and appropriate.
9. apply the principles of adult and professional learning in the design and delivery
of training services.
10. develop a Training-of-Trainers program for judges.
11. design and implement a system for monitoring and evaluating the effectiveness
of judicial training and its contribution to judicial performance.
12. convene a special conference of the judicial leadership and relevant stakeholders
to consider these recommendations and to develop a plan of implementation

6 OBSERVATIONS
In exploring the options to institutionalize judicial training, particularly in transitional

jurisdictions around the world, there are a number of key decisions which need to be
addressed by judicial authorities. These are addressed below:
a Juristic model
While there are many different approaches to delivering programs of judicial education
and training, a review of the international experience indicates that there are in essence
two major models. These models are based on the underpinning systems of justice
within which they operate, viz. the continental civil system and the British-based
common law system.
• Continental civil model – this includes many hybrid varieties but is structured
around a careerist approach to judicial appointment, that is, new judges are
appointed from the ranks of law graduates for the term of their careers. Their
induction is preceded or supported by an extensive institution-based training
period prior to initial appointment as a magistrate or junior judge. As they acquire
experience and seniority, they return to the training institution for further training
ahead of promotion within the judicial hierarchy. This approach in training is
establishment focused, institutionally directed, mandated and prescriptive, tightly
structured, based on a comprehensive curriculum, and usually includes
examinations and formal assessments. A classic example of this approach is
found in France with the establishment of L’Ecole Nationale de Magistrature in
1958. Other countries using variations of this approach include Germany, Italy,
Japan and Thailand.
The strengths of this approach are that it is highly structured, comprehensive and quality
assured. The disadvantages are that it is very expensive in requiring extensive
infrastructure and institutional capacity-building, it may be rigid and non-responsive to
changing conditions and needs, and it is classroom-based and theoretically-focused
rather than practical and applied in its approach.
• Common law model – this alternative approach is based on systems of judicial

selection from the ranks of experienced lawyers who are either appointed or
elected to a judicial office, and usually remain in that office without promotion
until retirement or completion of term. This approach builds on substantial levels
of pre-existing professional legal competence, as the usual qualification for
selection. It focuses on providing usually short transitional orientation or pre-
service training to the judicial role, and in-service continuing education usually in
updating on recent developments. Examples of this approach are found in the
British Judicial Studies Board, the Judicial Commission of New South Wales, and
the Philippines Judicial Academy. Variations of this approach relate to its
prescriptive or elective nature: (a) in the United States, most states have
mandated continuing judicial education as compulsory for purposes of ongoing
licensure as a judge; (b) In New South Wales, however, ongoing training is
formally voluntary, but it is endorsed by each court with the effect that it is
informally mandated; (c) In Britain, it is strictly elective and relies on voluntary
participation.

The strengths of this approach are that it is accessible, practical and court-focused,
structured around supporting relatively experienced in-service judges performing their
duties in court. It also requires considerably less infrastructure and resources and as a
result is much cheaper to supply. The disadvantages are that it provides a much less
comprehensive framework of structured training and pre-qualifying promotion to support
the development of judicial competence, and inexperienced judges may lack sufficient
technical and professional guidance and support in performing their role.
The selection of model depends on the fundamental structure of the judicial system in
each country and the process for judicial appointment. These in turn affect the mission
and objectives of each judicial education. In the careerist approach, it is the mission of
judicial training to develop the candidate to the required level of competence prior to
appointment or promotion; in the common law approach, it is the mission of judicial
education to facilitate transition to the judicial role from a base of preexisting professional
competence as a lawyer, and to support in-service continuing professional development.
There are various arguments about which approach is better, which go beyond the
scope of this paper. Yet, interestingly, many of the issues and challenges of practice are
observed to remain the same, irrespective of model.
b Leadership
Experience indicates that it is fundamentally important that the judiciary as an institution

directs the process of its ongoing training, education and development. This requires the
championship and commitment of the Chief Justice to lead this development. It may also
require the support and endorsement of the Ministry of Justice. Analysis of governance
structures for judicial training around the world discloses that this leadership is generally
established in the governance structure of the judicial training institution, most commonly
through the chairmanship of its peak decision-making body as an indication of the
importance and sensitivity of the endeavour. Other experienced and respected members
of the judiciary should be members, representing various interests within the judiciary.
Other members should include the government, educational experts and representatives
of the community, or civil society, that the judiciary serves.
c Ownership
Similarly, it is important that the judiciary have an adequate opportunity to participate

actively in its own professional development through active membership of oversight
committees, consultations regarding needs, and contribution to the faculty of instructors.
Any suggestion that this training is being imposed from the outside risks demoralizing
the judicial constituency and creating barriers to effective learning. As already
mentioned, there are a number of mechanisms, structures and procedures which will
promote and consolidate ownership and leadership. These include:
• Leadership of and representation in the governance body

• Establishment of judicial policy and quality oversight committees
• Formation of education program committees in each court
• Participation in training needs assessment consultations
• Conducting training as part of the judicial faculty
• Providing feedback on services as part of monitoring and evaluation.

d Client focus
In order to ensure that the curriculum of training focuses on developing competence and
practical aspects of judicial service delivery, representatives of the community and court
should be included in the governance structure of the institution.
Experience demonstrates that while judges are insightful in their perceptions of their own
training needs, this presents only half of the assessment. A doctor asks a patient to
describe his/her symptoms, but this does not complete the diagnosis. Similarly, the
assessment of judicial training needs is usefully extended to the clients of the judiciary
who can provide valuable feedback of their perceptions of the quality of judicial service.
Provided this task is handled with appropriate sensitivity, valuable insights of need can
be provided by representatives of the legal profession, business community, and civil
society. For example, judges in Australia did not recognize that they used technical
jargon which is impossible for lay people to understand and needed to use plainer
language. This gave rise to valuable training in communication skills. Similarly, judges in
England did not know that they are regarded as being slow, arrogant and out of touch
with community values. This in turn gave rise to extensive training in case management
skills, communication skills, and taking steps to get back in touch with prevailing social
values.
e Needs
The single most dynamic element in determining the educational content of any program
of judicial development is the nature of the training need it is intended to address. The
needs are defined in terms of key competencies - the knowledge, skills and disposition
required for judges to perform their duties effectively. For this reason, a comprehensive
training needs assessment or analysis should be conducted from the outset. Articulation
and prioritization of these needs will then inform the objectives for the education
program.
The needs assessment should be inclusive and participatory, and involve three principal
constituents: (a) members of the superior and subordinate judiciary, (b) relevant
educationalists and other respected academics, and (c) community representatives and
civil society, representing both “clients” and “non-clients” of the courts, business,
alienated poor as represented through NGO’s and other interest groups.
The methodologies of these assessments will usually combine a number of elements

including:
• Face-to-face interviews of key stakeholders

• Standardized surveying on all/sample judicial officers
• Clinical observations of judicial performance in courts
• Analysis of court performance data
• Expert consultations and appraisal
The benefits of investing in a comprehensive needs assessment comprising all or a

combination of these methodological elements is foundational in building the training
program and will directly inform its nature and content.

f Mission and objectives
As discussed earlier, once the training needs of the judiciary are identified, the judicial
training institution should determine its mission, objectives and priorities as the basis for
developing its curriculum of courses and publication services.
A review of the experience in other countries discloses a commonality in the overall

mission of programs of judicial education, but some quite marked refinements in specific
objectives dependent on the specific needs being addressed. The universally recognised
mission of judicial education is to enhance the competence of judges and thereby to
improve the performance of courts to provide services applying the law and resolving
disputes. Beneath this overarching mission, objectives may vary but are likely to aim at
building competence by improving the knowledge, skills and outlook of judges.
Examples of some program objectives are to focus on orientation and induction training,
or to conduct seminars to improve legal knowledge or workshops to develop judicial
skills or computer literacy. Priorities are those matters identified by the judiciary as
needing to be addressed first in its training program.
Reference has already been made giving examples of different objectives and priorities
in different institutions focusing services. Experience around the world commonly
demonstrates that training institutions determine initial priorities at induction level training
for subordinate courts through face-to-face training. These priorities tend to evolve as
the institution becomes more established and starts to address other priorities such as
the in-service needs of more experienced judges, the needs of more remote judges, and
the higher level needs of senior and specialist judges.
This ‘competency-based’ approach to training and development has as its ultimate

objective the improvement of institutional performance of the courts as a whole. Clearly,
improvements in court performance require the support of training programs which do
more than just give judges information about the law. In addition, these programs need
to develop the skills and attitudes of good judging which equip judges to do their jobs
effectively. In practice, there may be more needs than resources or opportunities to
address them. In these cases, it is usual to set priorities to guide the focus of the training
response. Determination of these priorities is a policy-based task which should be made
by the appropriate decision-makers responsible to the judicial leadership.
An example of training objectives and priorities decision-making is recently provided by

Pakistan’s Federal Judicial Academy expanding its education program from conducting
lectures on legal information into developing a workshop program on judicial skills
development. This policy-based decision has resulted in the expansion of the training
program with the following curriculum of new training packages:
• Legal research skills

• Computer research skills
• Decision-making skills
• Judgment writing skills
• Communication skills
• Assessing evidence skills
• Case management skills
• Backlog reduction skills
• Alternative dispute resolution (ADR) skills

Other examples of setting objectives include the decision of the Philippines Judicial
Academy to reduce the preponderance of its face-to-face conference activities by
introducing a distance-learning strategy to enable judges to participate in training
remotely, using IT web-based media. In Australia, the initial priority for the focus of
training services was to newly appointed magistrates because as a matter of policy the
Judicial Commission of NSW determined that it would offer the largest and most
immediately apparent benefits by addressing the needs of new appointees in the
subordinate courts. It was only after the subordinate courts’ induction programs were
firmly established after five years, that the Judicial Commission reviewed this policy and
priority, and expanded its services to the superior courts on a continuing professional
development basis.
g Resources
The next most influential factor in the institutionalization of any judicial training program
is the resources available to address training needs. This will be affected by which
judicial model is appropriate: careerist or common law, or a hybrid of the two as may be
appropriate. The former clearly requires substantially more resources in the form of
infrastructure and a permanent training establishment. Are these available, or can they
be shared from existing resources? A detailed resource assessment, including fixed and
recurrent budgets should be prepared within the context of what is feasible. In Pakistan,
for example, the Federal Judicial Academy has a hostel with a capacity for 52
participants to undergo courses of up to 3 months. Similarly the Philippines Judicial
Academy offers hostel facilities. But many other countries, such as Britain or Australia,
have not considered it necessary to make such investments to date.
The case study experience demonstrates that another crucial resource is the availability
of judges to serve as trainers. As has been seen in Pakistan, an invisible barrier may
obstruct the availability of good judges to perform this role until judicial service rules
have been modified to count faculty service for purposes of seniority.
As has been discussed earlier, particularly in relation to the experience of the Philippines
and Pakistan, the lack of resources generally available for training programs impels an
approach which makes best use of what resources are available. In Mongolia, for
example, judges and lawyers are trained together. As a guiding principle, active use
should be made of appropriate resources and materials which may already exist in other
institutions, for example, universities and related training institutions.
h Curriculum
The curriculum of any program of judicial education will vary according to the learning
needs, educational objectives and program priorities of each judiciary.
Curriculum design provides a framework to help judicial educators to plan what is to be

taught, to whom and why, and implies that decisions have been made about the subject
matter, the relationship between segments of knowledge, skills and abilities, and their
organization and sequence. The value of curriculum development in continuing judicial
education is that it offers a plan of the proposed learning outcomes and the means of
reaching them. This enables educators to identify whether segments of the program are
missing or operating ineffectively.

A curriculum strategy should be devised to match and rank training services to those
needs which have been identified in a planned manner, rather than throwing ad hoc
training in a piecemeal way at one topic after another. This strategy could usefully
include the introduction of an establishment plan, the setting of educational goals and
objectives, a perpetual cycle of annual training plans comprising pre-service and in-
service programs, the formulation of policies and standards, and a career-planning
stairway that offers an appropriate framework of promotional incentives and rewards for
aspiring judges.
To assist in the development of effective practice, a cycle of model practice for judicial
education is proposed below. This cycle builds on principles of adult learning,
professional development, and judicial education to integrate managing the education
process. This cycle is perpetual, and consists of four quadrants, each comprising
additional spokes: (i) needs assessment – identification of purpose, scope and content
of training required, (ii) curriculum – setting of strategies and priorities, application of
resources, and design of curriculum approach (iii) delivery – development of capacity
through training-of-trainers, presentation of courses, publication of materials; and (iv)
evaluation – ongoing monitoring, refining and updating in light of feedback and change.
Reference to this cycle of practice management should assist judicial policy-makers and
educators alike in addressing the planning issues associated with judicial education in a
methodical and systematic fashion.
Cycle of Practice

Curriculum planning using a planning matrix also provides a means to plan and structure
training services to meet categories of educational need in a methodical way, by
classifying those services in terms of the nature of educational need which they are
planned to meet.
This planning process can operate effectively through the formulation of a matrix of
educational services. This matrix is defined by content (subject matter) and pitch (level
of application). This approach defines content as consisting of five categories: law,
procedure, management and administration, judicial skills, conduct and ethics. Pitch is
categorized as induction, update, experience-exchange, specialization and refresher.
By combining both axes, a matrix of twenty-five service options is created which
facilitates the identification and characterization of services being provided by the
institution within an overall framework.
This matrix configuration commends itself for identifying the range of potential services
which can theoretically be provided, and by highlighting those which actually are
provided. This promotes planning, monitoring and ultimately evaluation. For example,
an absence of any programming specifically designed for experienced judicial officers, or
an absence of skills development generally, becomes readily apparent and can then be
ratified or rectified at a planning level.
Matrix planning
Content Judicial
Substantive Court Judicial Ethics and Inter
administration
law Procedure skills conduct disciplinary
Pitch management
Induction
-
orientation
Update
-
change
Networking
- problem
solving
Specialist
-
advanced
Refresher

i Training of trainers
As has already been discussed, another foundational issue is the application of

principles of adult education, and the need to ensure the educational effectiveness of
judicial training. The challenge of ensuring educational effectiveness applies at all levels
in the planning, design and delivery of training services. As has been seen, these
considerations affect the application of educational theory to judges in a number of
significant ways and, in summary, any model of formalized continuing judicial education
should be based on foundations of adult learning, but must also reflect the distinctive
characteristics of judges as learners.
Training-of Trainers (ToT) is a major element in any successful program of judicial

education and training. Just as we have seen that judicial education builds the capacity
of the judiciary in terms of its independence, competence and accountability, more
particularly, ToT instills the means for sustainability by enabling the judiciary to train its
own members. A good judge may be a fine role-model, but s/he is not automatically a
good trainer of other judges. It is relatively straightforward for judges to write and present
papers on the law; it is not necessarily so straightforward to impart experience
effectively, and to develop the skills and disposition of judging in others. Just as judges
are not usually experienced trainers, so educators are not usually familiar with the
distinctive training needs of the judiciary. This means that the judiciary, as an institution,
should consider how, and who, it wishes to invest in its training program, and it
additionally requires the provision of a comprehensive Training-of-Trainers (ToT)
program to establish the expertise to deliver the training required.
The purpose of ToT is to provide a faculty of judicial trainers with the capacity – the
knowledge, skills and understanding – to train other judges effectively. This capacity is
required at two levels: (a) directing and managing the education program, and (b)
delivering training services in the form of training activities and publications.
The TOT component will build on and develop the existing experience and expertise of
the Federal Judicial Academy which completed a program of training in 2002. The
proposed ToT will be divided into two segments (a) Curriculum Development and (b)
Presentation Skills.
The ToT will be conducted using the experience of the existing faculty of the FJA in
order to expand and develop expertise among themselves, and will also include the new
faculty members and occasional trainers of the FJA and the subordinate level under the
oversight of the provincial High Courts.
Module 1 - Curriculum Development
Objective - To introduce and develop capacity to (a) assess needs for judicial
education/training, and (b) develop curriculum and materials building on the existing
experience of existing professional staff.
Workshop 1 Needs Assessment # 1

Techniques and findings

Induction training: topic inventories, priorities

Continuing education: topic inventories, priorities
Workshop 4 Curriculum Development # 1

Resource analysis, educational strategy and policies
Workshop 5 Curriculum Development # 2

Session planning and materials.
Module 2 – Presentation Skills
Objective - To introduce and develop formal and informal presentation skills, building on
the existing experience of existing professional staff.
Each workshop (3-4 hours) explains and demonstrates the practice of adult learning by
using training-by-doing active learning techniques. In each workshop, participants make
presentations which are video-recorded for the purpose of review, critique and feedback.
Workshop 6 Introduction
Understanding the principles of adult learning
Workshop 7 Presentation Skills – Lecturing techniques

Communicating effectively
Workshop 8 Presentation Skills – Workshop techniques # 1

Participatory learning and questioning

Using teaching aids, power-point and materials
Workshop 10 Workshop Session Planning

Brainstorming, group discussion, Q+A, Debate, problem-solving
case-studies, solo/duet exercises

Designing skills training curricula:
* Case management skills, Assessing witness credibility; Legal
research skills; Judicial decision-making skills; Judgment writing
skills.

Revising/ representing skills development workshops
Trainers’ Handbook
The quality assurance and sustainability of the ToT will be consolidated by the
publication of a Judicial Trainers Handbook. This handbook would provide a custom-
designed, comprehensive and culturally-appropriate resource for faculty members. The
content of this handbook should include the following sections:-

Learning objectives
Learning and training theory
Characteristics of adult learners
Learning styles
Learning by doing
Four steps of learning
Planning your session
Presentations techniques
Traditional techniques
Workshop facilitation techniques
Large groups methods
Small groups
Papers, handouts and materials
Some golden rules
Questions
Hearing and listening
Non-verbal communication
Presentation aids
Common problems for presenters
Transforming method and content
A professional approach to judicial education involves both the content and the method
of training. Traditionally, much of whatever judicial training was being provided has
concentrated on substantive law. In some cases, this is much needed. But, in many
systems particularly those which are merit-based, the training needs of judges include
the development of skills and attitudes – sometimes called social context education – as
much as information on the law. Moreover, delivery has often been very ‘Socratic’ – by
this, we mean it has focused on delivering information on or about the law, mainly in a
lecturing format. With the introduction of a new professional approach to judicial training
based on the theory and principles of adult education, a more useful and effective
means of delivering educational services will commence. In terms of content, this will
focus not just on substantive law, such as information of important statutes and law, but
also on the skills and disposition of judging. In terms of method, lecturing will be heavily
supplemented by the introduction of small-group seminars and workshops which will
build on the active participation of judges in techniques of active learning, such as
problem-solving case-studies, scenarios and simulations, and panel discussions to
develop professional skills and judgment which build on their foundation of information
and knowledge. It is important to stress that this training approach will be considerably
more practical rather than theoretical, and active rather than passive.
Distance learning – publications, bench books and web-based support
Additionally, it is often important to develop a strategy of ‘distance learning’ which will

overcome the challenges of geography and inaccessibility, specifically the direct and
opportunity costs associated with the centralised delivery of training based in capital
cities. This distance strategy should commence with the introduction of a publications
program, comprising the writing of a first bench book, or practice manual for judges,
focusing on court practice and procedures to provide them with practical assistance in
performing their day-to-day role as judges. In addition, the institution should usefully start
to publish a regular newsletter or digest on important current issues on law and practice,

possibly, for example, extracts of the most useful papers from its new seminar program
for the lasting benefit of all judges, including those in distant regions who were unable to
attend the proceedings. Later, detailed consideration should be given to extending this
distance program with the production of other training media which could include audio-
tapes, video-tapes, computer-based packages and even satellite broadcasting.
Judicial training inventory
The services offered by any program of continuing judicial education is determined by

need. With the above curriculum approach, the ToT will facilitate participants to identify,
organise and prioritise training services from the following generic inventory of training
needs.
Substantive law and court procedure

To be assessed depending on the prior training, experience and duties of
judges
Criminal law and procedure
Civil law and procedure
Judicial skills
how to conduct a hearing trial
control of courtroom
note-taking
legal research
admitting evidence
statutory interpretation
judgment writing and giving reasons
principled and uniform sentencing
administering natural justice, due process and fair trial
protecting human rights and civil liberties
resolving disputes and alternative dispute resolution (ADR)
Judicial management and administration skills

case management
administering courts: filings, fixtures, hearing lists and queuing
record management
registry management and practice
team leadership between judicial and court officers
judicial information technology and computer skills
managing complex litigation and commercial disputes
Judicial disposition – social context - outlook, attitude and values

judicial role, powers and responsibilities
judicial independence, impartiality, integrity and outlook
judicial review
judicial conduct and ethics
gender/race equality
Generic management and administrative skills

Communication skills – written and oral
Time management

Computer skills
Coaching and mentoring
Inter-disciplinary
To be assessed depending on the prior training, experience and duties of
judges
Forensic scientific evidence: psychiatry and pathology – in criminal
prosecutions
Financial accounting – in complex commercial disputes
Medico-legal fundamentals – in injury cases.
Learning by doing
As judicial educators, we understand that adults “learn best by doing.” Consequently, our
preferred approach to developing institutional capacity is to guide and assist them in
delivering training services – whether courses, publications or other support services for
the judiciary – actively at the operational level. This implies that considerable practical
support is initially required at the formative stages of establishing a new program of
continuing judicial education to assist in conducting training needs assessments,
developing the curriculum strategy, and delivering courses and workshops with
evaluation and the provision of constructive feedback.
j Monitoring and evaluation
It is in the interests of all stakeholders that a system for monitoring the performance and
results of judicial training is introduced in order to (a) provide a means for feedback to
refine operations, and (b) demonstrate an effective contribution to improving judicial
service delivery. Yet, the application of this principle in practice is recognized by its
breach.
A system to monitor the judicial training program is required to ensure that it delivers
what is intended, and provides mechanisms to review and refine activities in the light of
feedback and experience. The design of this system hinges on the specific goals and
objectives of the program, once endorsed.
Because no single indicator can comprehensively measure professional development

with validity and reliability, a range of indicators were required to measure the impact of
the program. These indicators measure specific outputs and then “triangulate” an
assessment of their outcomes on the performance of the judiciary. Because qualitative
measurements are variable, preference to selection of quantitative indicators will be
made wherever possible.
The process recommended a two-tiered building-block approach to performance

indicators be adopted to assess the program in terms of its process and its impacts.
a) “Process Indicators” – These measure the implementation of the program in terms of

its efficiency and effort. These indicators are “internal” to the program and evaluate
whether it is doing what it set out to do. Typically, these indicators should include the
following:-
The lead indicator relates to central project activity and efficiency, and is activity-

based, such as conducting a specified number of training courses on time and within
budget.
While a criterion for success of the program relates to judges learning and
competence, any direct assessment of improvements in the levels of knowledge,
understanding, skills and attitudes of individual judges may be difficult and
expensive.
For this reason, it may be more appropriate to select secondary indicators relating to
participants’ reaction to the program and training. These secondary indicators usually
include participation in training as an objective; a visible, quantitative measure of
project output and efficiency. Similar indicators may relate to publication and
distribution of materials.
While it may be difficult to directly measure increased judicial competence, it is useful

to measure (a) participants’ satisfaction in terms of whether they perceived that the
training added to their knowledge, understanding, skills and attitudes, and (b) any
existence of their intentions to make improvements in service delivery as a result.
While these indicators are inferential in measuring qualitative perceptions of program
value, they do enable ongoing refinement and fine-tuning of project effort (formative
evaluation). More importantly, they provide the means to measure the will to improve
systemic performance, which is essential to improving performance in terms of
service delivery (summative evaluation).
b) “Impact Indicators” – These measure the effectiveness of program outputs in terms

of their results or outcomes. They are “external” to the program, and describe
objectively visible measurables and how they contribute to enhancing service
delivery for indigenous people.
Ultimately, the lead impact indicator may be the performance of the courts to dispose
of disputes in a timely and cost-efficient manner. It is not, however, easy to select
any single indicator of measurement. Official statistics abound, but they do not
necessarily describe all relevant considerations. While invariably anecdotal and
qualitative, client satisfaction of service may ultimately synthesize all other indicators.
A number of techniques could be used to collect data using these indicators for
purposes of evaluating the intervention. These techniques include: -
• Comparative surveys – self, peer and external assessment

• Interviews of key stakeholders and representatives of court users
• Observation and expert appraisal
• Courts’ performance data.
Ultimately, a variety of performance indicators were selected with which to “triangulate”

measurements of the contribution of the program to enhancing the quality of court
services to the community. These indicators combine process and impact evaluation
techniques, subjective and objective criteria, and quantitative and qualitative data.
***

ANNEX - CASE STUDIES
The case studies outlined below were selected from diverse judicial systems and legal
traditions to define the key issues from actual experience that inform the development of
any good judicial training program over time. Each case study features different
experiences and generic lessons which are nonetheless universally relevant in
illustrating choices made and lessons learned by such institutions. The lessons from
these experiences inform the observations and recommendations in this paper. 45
The case studies are narrated in chronological order relating to the establishment of
judicial training institutions in each country, and reflect an evolutionary trend in the
development of experience in judicial training around the world from which lessons will
be distilled for the consideration of judicial authorities in transitional jurisdictions.
A AUSTRALIA
An assessment of the Australian experience in introducing judicial training is illuminating

for judicial authorities in other countries specifically in relation to issues of judicial
ownership, judicial leadership through participation in the training faculty, participation
policies, and resource rationalization.
Context – Australia is a parliamentary federation of seven states, with a multicultural

population of 20 million people who are predominantly Caucasian. The economy is a
prosperous western-style services-based model, with a GDP purchase power parity per
capita of USD27,000.
Justice system – Constitutionally, the federation and each state make law and
administer justice in a court system based on the British common law approach. The
judiciary comprises approximately 1,000 judges and magistrates sitting in a two-tiered
court hierarchy comprising the apex High Court and the Federal Court of Australia,
together with state Supreme, District and Local Courts. These courts are supported by
an extensive tribunal system for the resolution of administrative and special civil
disputes.
a. How and why the country and/or judiciary decided to reform or build a new or
significantly revamped judicial education mechanism
Judicial education in Australia is relatively well established, but nonetheless recent in its
origins. Traditionally, judicial education was non-existent in any formalized sense and
relied heavily, in the words of one senior judge, on "the gifted amateur." During the
1970's, various courts took initiatives to conduct conferences and seminars usually on a
national, biennial or ad hoc basis. It has however gathered considerable momentum
and, "heralds the advent of potentially significant changes in the Australian judicial
culture."
The origins of judicial education in Australia can be traced to the formation of the
Australian Institute of Judicial Administration (AIJA) by judges in 1975, and by a call in
1983 from Justice Michael Kirby for the introduction of formalized judicial education to
assist new appointees in the transition to the bench and to keep judges abreast of
change, following similar recent developments in France and the United States.

An additional driving factor related to the standards of judicial conduct and competence
which had not been, until then, a matter of particular public concern.46 However, criminal
charges, trials and a commission of inquiry into the conduct of a justice of the High
Court, criminal charges against a district court judge and the conviction of a former chief
magistrate led to closer scrutiny of judicial standards and to the New South Wales
Government taking steps to be seen to address these misadventures through the
establishment of the Judicial Commission.47
b. History of the establishment and development process to date
Early calls for judicial education were met with a mixed response within the judiciary. It
was not until the establishment of the Judicial Commission of New South Wales in 1986
and the formation of the AIJA secretariat in 1987 that any permanent infrastructure was
dedicated to judicial education. Since 1987, both bodies have conducted an increasing
range of judicial conferences and workshops for judges and judicial administrators on a
national and state basis respectively. Subsequently, there have been major increases in
the provision of judicial education in all states. In 1994, the first judicial orientation
course was conducted on a national basis by the AIJA and Judicial Commission of New
South Wales. This course was opened by Chief Justice Mason, who observed:
[In the past] new judges were expected somehow to acquire almost overnight the
requisite knowledge of how to be a judge. Perhaps it was thought that judicial
know-how was absorbed by a process of osmosis ... One of the myths of our
legal culture was that the barrister by dint of his or her long experience as a
advocate in the courts was equipped to conduct a trial in any jurisdiction.48
Looking back almost twenty years, the establishment of judicial education now seems
straightforward in Australia.49 But, at the time, its introduction was quite controversial.
Many judges considered that it was not necessary, indeed an insult to their
competence.50 Others saw it as an intrusion by the executive into their independence by
prescribing continuing education. These concerns were mingled with other larger
problems relating to falling public confidence in the judiciary over complaints of high
costs of litigation, trial backlogs, and alleged instances of corruption. Overall, there was
a crisis in public confidence in the courts which took some years to resolve.51
The most significant factor in facilitating resolution and acceptance within the judiciary
was the very visible judicial ownership of the Judicial Commission, defined through the
chairmanship of the Chief Justice and the inclusion of all other heads of jurisdiction on its
governing body. It rapidly became clear that the Commission was the creature of the
judiciary rather than the executive, and this was emphasized at all operational levels
through elaborate consultative mechanisms, such as standing judicial oversight
committees and education committees in each court, to ensure judicial leadership and
participation in all operational planning and the delivery of educational services.
In the twenty years since the introduction of judicial training in Australia, there has been
a steady building in the ownership and acceptance of the practical value of continuing
professional development for judges. In the early days, as outlined, quite a number of
judges were guarded in their attitudes, feeling that judicial education was unnecessary,
ineffective or intrusive. Over the years, as they have explored and discovered the
practical utility of this training in helping them to perform their jobs more easily and

better, so a growing commitment has become steadily evident. Ultimately, this
underscores the Australian approach which focuses on ensuring that the training is
useful and practical in helping judges to do their jobs better.
c. Summary description of the organization, mission and management infrastructure
Judicial education is now provided in Australia on a national and state basis by the
Australian Institute of Judicial Administration, the National Judicial College of Australia,
and the Judicial Commission of New South Wales, as outlined below.
Judicial education is delivered at both the national and state levels for constitutional as
much as judicial reasons. Australia is a federation and, under its constitution, law is
made at two levels, federal and state, and is administered by two levels of courts. The
establishment of the AIJA reflected a national initiative to provide education to all judges.
But in practice the reach of its services was limited by resource and logistical
constraints. What then followed was the largest state, New South Wales, establishing
the Judicial Commission to address the more localized training needs of its own state-
based judges. In due course, this was followed in the next largest state, Victoria. This
has resulted in quite patchy service delivery at the national level. The more recent
establishment of the NJCA was intended to even out delivery of available training for
judges particularly in smaller states. This has brought with it a new challenge to
rationalize resources and services, which is presently ongoing.
Interestingly, this evolution was slightly different in the United States, which is also a
constitutional federation. Here again the initiative to institutionalize judicial training was
seen in the establishment of the National Judicial College in Reno, Nevada, which was
designed to provide training to all and any judges nationally. In due course, the states
similarly started to introduce their own training bodies to provide more focused training
for the particular needs of their state judges. Moreover, the training needs of the federal
courts were then separately addressed through the formation of the Federal Judicial
Center in Washington DC. In the following years, the relevance of the NJC has been
more or less completely superceded by the superior reach and focus of the state-based
providers, resulting in the NJC exploring other mandates, for example, the provision of
specialist training in particular areas not covered by other providers, and training to
foreign judges whose countries lack the facilities to provide their own or who alternatively
wish to survey the US experience.
Judicial education in Australia is voluntary. Publicly, the courts express strong views
against mandatory training, mainly for purposes of distancing what it sees as intrusive
and ‘politically correct’ calls by either the public or the executive for the courts to change
their approaches and attitudes on controversial public issues. Privately, the courts
increasingly recognize the value of relevant judicial education, and informally encourage
their judges to actively participate. This involves courts taking steps to dismantle barriers
against participation by, for example, providing official relief from sitting obligations, and
ensuring participants receive normal salary, benefits and entitlements on training days.
Over the years, conducting training has migrated from a weekend and evening activity to
part of the mainstream business of the courts. Experience indicates that expecting
judges to undergo training after hours and through weekends is attractive only to the
most committed, and is a perverse recipe for the most needy going untrained.

i Australian Institute of Judicial Administration
The principal objectives of the AIJA include research into judicial administration
and the development and conduct of educational programs for judicial officers,
court administrators and members of the legal profession in relation to court
administration and judicial systems.
Supervision of the day-to-day management of the Institute is the responsibility of

the AIJA Board of Management. The Board consists of President, Deputy
Presidents together with three elected Council members. The Institute is a private
organization, sponsored by government, and membership is by subscription.
Historically, much of the focus of the AIJA has been upon case-flow management
as a means to improving judicial administration, and the Institute has published
widely in this area. In the area of education, the Institute runs a number of regular
activities in the area of judicial education including annual programs for court
administrators, court librarians, magistrates and judges. It has also been involved
in developing courses in relation to a number of specialized areas including gender
awareness programs, courses relating to cultural awareness, court technology and
case management.
Each year, the AIJA runs a number of courses, conferences and seminars
designed for judges, magistrates, tribunal members, court administrators, lawyers
and others with an interest in judicial administration. All education activities are
conducted on a fee-paying basis. These activities include:
• Sheriffs’ Seminar
• Annual Conference
• Annual Magistrates’ Conference
• Annual Oration
• Technology for Justice Conferences
• Guest Lectures
• Annual Tribunals’ Conference
• Special projects– Indigenous Cultural Awareness, and Technology for Justice.
A major initiative involves the Regional Judicial Orientation Program, which is a 5-

day residential course for judges from Australia, New Zealand and the Pacific
region, featuring training on:
• Courtroom Issues
• Judicial Conduct
• Time Management
• Psychological and Physical Health
• Using Computers as a Research and Management Tool
• Judgment Writing
• Assessing the Credibility of Witnesses
• Problems in Evidence
• Court Craft
• Social Awareness Issues
• Sentencing

• Alternative Dispute Resolution
• Common Pitfalls in Decision Making
The AIJA also publishes reports on commissioned research, collections of papers

from important conferences and seminars, the AIJA News, and the Journal of
Judicial Administration.
ii National Judicial College of Australia
In the early 1990’s, calls were made for the establishment of a body dedicated to
providing judicial education for the whole Australian judiciary for the following
reasons:
“Currently judicial officers in Australia attend a diverse range of judicial education

programs but the availability varies greatly between jurisdictions. A national
approach to judicial education would address the needs of judicial officers
throughout Australia. A national college would ensure that education for judicial
officers was planned and coordinated at a national level, both increasing quality
and avoiding duplication.”
The National Judicial College of Australia was established in May 2002 as an

independent entity, and reports annually to the Council of Chief Justices and to the
Standing Committee of Attorneys General. The objectives of the NJA are:
• to provide professional development for judicial officers (federal judges and

magistrates, and judges, masters, and magistrates appointed by participating
State and Territory governments), and
• to conduct occasional courses for non-judicial officers, such as senior court
administrators and tribunal members.
The governing body is comprised of a council of six members, headed by a state

chief justice, together with judicial representatives from other states. This council is
supported by regional coordinators to assess program needs, and a consultative
committee to ensure that the Council has the benefit of the views of stakeholders
and of all geographical regions of Australia. The work of the College is supported
by a director and a personal assistant to the director. The College reports annually
to federal and state attorneys-general, and to the Council of Chief Justices.
At the official launch of the College in August 2002, the first chair of the Council of
the College, Chief Justice John Doyle of South Australia, said the following about
the need for judicial education in Australia:
“The case for a National Judicial College for judicial education is self evident.
Members of the Australian judiciary can benefit from programs of professional
development that focus on their legal skills, their practical judicial skills, and their
approach to their work and which help them to maintain fitness and enthusiasm for
the work. The work of the judiciary is demanding. Judges are expected to have
professional legal skills of a high order. Some of these practical skills are peculiar
to the judicial role, some are skills that are also required in other professions.
Additionally, the administration of justice involves much more than professional
and practical competence. There is a qualitative aspect to the administration of

justice which calls for judicial officers to have a real enthusiasm for their work, a
strong belief in the importance of justice, and a commitment to the administration
of justice in the fullest sense of the word. Experience tells us that most judicial
officers can benefit from programs of professional development that help them ….”
iii Judicial Commission of New South Wales
New South Wales has the oldest and most extensive program of judicial education
in Australia and has adopted the more recent American approach of providing
state-based education for judicial officers. This program is provided by the Judicial
Commission, which was established in 1986 in response to calls for a formal
mechanism to review sentences and sentencing practice, and to give effect to
judicial accountability.
The Commission's principal functions are to:
• assist the courts to achieve consistency in sentencing

• organize and supervise an appropriate scheme of continuing education and
training of judicial officers
• examine complaints against judicial officers.
The Judicial Commission's education program aims to promote excellence in

judicial performance by providing judicial officers with information on law, justice
and related areas; and assisting in the development of appropriate judicial skills
and values. It also responds quickly to important legal developments through
conferences, seminars and publications.
The Judicial Commission offers an extensive conference and seminar program

ranging from induction courses for new appointees to specialist conferences. It
provides special seminars on topics of importance to judicial officers. It also
regularly conducts conferences to keep judicial officers up to date with current
developments and emerging trends. Computer training courses aim to facilitate
effective use of computers in the context of the court system, and to enable access
to on-line legal databases.
d. Curriculum and curriculum development processes
Detailed curricula of current courses conducted by the National Judicial College of

Australia, and the Judicial Commission of NSW, together with its Policy of Judicial
Education, are available on inquiry.
e Commentary and lessons learned
Analysis of the Australian experience identifies a number of useful lessons for the
consideration of the judicial authorities in other jurisdictions. These relate to judicial
ownership, judicial leadership through participation in the training faculty, participation
policies, and resource rationalization.
1. Judicial ownership – The issue of judicial ownership of its own training has been a
critical element in the successful establishment and institutionalization of judicial
education in Australia. High levels of suspicion initially existed in the judiciary at

the prospect of executive interference in the internal affairs of the courts and the
external imposition of a mandatory program of training. In Australia, these quite
universal concerns were addressed through a number of structures, mechanisms
and procedures including (a) vesting real decision-making control in the leadership
of the judiciary as constituted in the governance structures of those institutions, (b)
the installation of standing judicial oversight committees, and (c) the formation of
education committees in each court.
At a more operational level, judges are normally notified of training opportunities

through their respective courts, and this is seen as an important institutionalizing
mechanism for demonstrating court endorsement and, thereby, ownership and
authenticity. Notification is usually through a memorandum of the chief judge.
While it is recognized that many older judges still prefer conventional paper-based
media, this is increasingly through electronic bulletins as the judiciary becomes
progressively more electronically literate.
Another important and influential means of ownership is through the use of judges
on the faculty of trainers.
2. Judicial leadership through training faculty – The issue of training faculty warrants
some comment. Generally, judges prefer that other judges act as their trainers
because they are recognized as having the relevant experience and insight on the
subject. Judge trainers are seen as authentic and as practitioners, rather than
theorists. They do however need training in presentation skills, and Training-of-
Trainers courses are offered by the training institutions. There are also many
interdisciplinary subjects where other experts are recognized as being qualified, for
example, DNA profiling, forensic ballistics, mental illness or off-balance sheet
accounting. Additionally, the professional staff of the training institutions, who may
be educational rather than judicial experts, will act as trainers where appropriate.
3. Participation policy – The Australian experience demonstrates the value of eliciting

voluntary participation in training rather than to mandate it through rules. This is
contrary to the approach in the United States where more than 90% of states
invest in mandated judicial training. In the Australian experience, the best
educational approach is seen to be through voluntary motivation to participate.
This imposes an obligation on the education provider to deliver really relevant and
useful training in an accessible way. It also requires institutional support of judicial
training by dismantling any barriers against participation, for example, the perverse
incentives of expecting judges to regularly surrender their private time to attend
training activities at their own cost. This has involved courts increasingly treating
training as a mainstream part of their business, which is conducted during
business hours, with judges receiving full entitlements to salary and costs during
participation.
4. Resource rationalization – Australia is presently addressing the challenge of

rationalizing available judicial education resources and services. Arguably, the
success in introducing programs of judicial education, notably in New South
Wales, has created demands by the judiciaries in smaller states which has
unexpectedly resulted in an oversupply of providers. While better resourced than
some other countries, the reality remains that many courts in smaller states are
relatively less well serviced than in others. Providers are now rationalizing their

respective roles to avoid duplication, as has also occurred in the United States in
regard to the evolving role of the National Judicial College. It is within this context
that one of the useful new roles of the NJCA is to consolidate a national calendar
of training from all providers, and to make this available to all judges.
B BRITAIN
An assessment of the British experience in introducing judicial training is relevant for the
judicial authorities in other jurisdictions because it highlights an important issue relating
to facilitating the introduction of formalized programs of judicial development, and to
addressing the existence of certain judicial sensitivities pertaining to the need to be
trained.52
Context – Britain is a constitutional monarchy with a bicameral parliament, comprising

an elected lower House of Commons, and an hereditary appointed upper House of
Lords. It has a population of 60 million people. The economy is highly developed,
industrial and services-based, and the GDP purchase power parity per capita is
USD25,500.
Justice system – Britain is the cradle of the common law approach to adversarial justice
and judge-made law, which is replicated in various hybrid forms around the world. At the
apex of the judicial hierarchy is the judicial bench of the House of Lords; the Supreme
Courts of England, Wales, and Northern Ireland – comprising the Courts of Appeal, the
High Courts of Justice, and the Crown Courts; and the Magistracy, many of whom are
lay appointees, that is, unqualified in law.
a. how and why the country and/or judiciary decided to reform or build a new or
Traditionally, senior judges in Britain – as district from magistrates – have been

appointed from the ranks of practicing lawyers, and their experience was seen as
providing all of the required qualifications for performing their judicial role.
More recently, however, the judiciary has been seen as being ‘out of touch’ with the
community and as failing to reflect the values of society it was commissioned to serve.
Public criticism of the professions generally, and the judiciary specifically, became
increasingly vocal in the latter part of the Twentieth Century. This criticism related to
inadequate service systems to care for the needy, the community which the judiciary is
charged to serve. The judiciary was criticized by consumers as being expensive, slow,
incompetent and inefficient. This criticism imposed considerable pressures on judiciaries
around the world to carry out their duties at the highest possible standards of
competence, and it is arguably within this context that the concept of systematized
continuing professional education evolved, as much in Britain as elsewhere.
In Britain, judicial education is administered by the Judicial Studies Board which found its
origins in a one-day sentencing conference organized by Lord Parker in 1963. The
Judicial Studies Board (JSB) was set up in 1979, following a review by Lord Justice
Bridge, with the object of providing a range of education services to the judiciary,
magistracy and lay magistracy particularly in the criminal jurisdiction. In 1985 its role was

extended to cover the provision of training in the civil and family jurisdictions and the
supervision of training for magistrates and judicial chairmen and members of tribunals.
The British approach to judicial education is markedly less formalized than is the case in
the United States, and conducts a range of judicial orientation and updating programs
which historically was predominantly designed for lay magistrates and tribunal members.
Regarding the standing of judicial education in Britain, the Board observed in 1988 that,
Judicial studies are no longer a novelty .... No competent and conscientious

occupant of any post would suggest that his (sic) performance is incapable of
being improved, and, since there is a limit to what can be done simply by self
improvement, almost all judges are able to perceive the need for organized means
of enhancing performance.
By 1995, this position had dramatically consolidated when Lord Justice Henry reported
what he described as a "sea-change in judicial attitudes to training over the past 25 to 30
years." He added, "Judges have accepted, appreciated, and benefited from training in a
way that has confounded the skeptics."
Twenty years ago, a majority of judges would have denied there was any need for
training. Today only a minority would share that view.
The Judicial Studies Board identifies the mission of judicial training as being:
To convey in a condensed form the lessons which experienced judges have

acquired from their experience...".
The objectives of the Board are:
1. To provide high quality training to full- and part-time judges in the exercise of their
jurisdiction in Civil, Criminal and Family Law.
2. To advise the Lord Chancellor on the policy for and content of training for lay
magistrates, and on the efficiency and effectiveness with which Magistrates'
Courts Committees deliver such training.
3. To advise the Lord Chancellor and Government Departments on the appropriate
standards for, and content of, training for judicial officers in Tribunals.
4. To advise the Government on the training requirement of judges, magistrates, and
judicial officers in Tribunals if proposed changes to the law, procedure and court
organisation are to be effective, and to provide, and advise on the content of, such
training.
5. To promote closer international co-operation over judicial training.
The Chairman and members of the JSB are appointed by the Lord Chancellor. The
Board comprises senior judges, respected academics and prominent members of the
community. Representatives from the judiciary, the magistracy and tribunals constitute a
majority of the JSB's members. The management of the Board consists of the chairman
and a director of studies, both of whom are senior judicial officers, supported by a small
secretariat staff, and a framework of honorary committees, including:

1. Criminal Committee
2. Civil Committee
3. Family Committee
4. Magisterial Committee
5. Tribunal Committee
6. Equal Treatment Advisory Committee
Each committee is responsible for developing and overseeing the conduct of particular
training programs. These programs generally comprise induction training courses,
continuing education seminars and publications.
The JSB has not developed a comprehensive formalized curriculum of training,

consistent with its informal approach to professional education. Instead, it reports that it
is now developing a more integrated approach to all aspects of judicial training, using a
combination of judicial seminars, written and electronic materials, to maximize the
effectiveness of the training. This is in response to receiving technical advice from
educational experts to this effect. It includes developing systems of distance learning
using materials supplied in CD-ROM or other electronic formats; creating and ensuring
an efficient and continuing updating of materials supplied in bench books to enable them
to be both a means of assisting the less experienced judiciary, and a means to regularly
provide information on latest developments in the law; and to develop training in IT skills
for judges.
The JSB publishes a range of materials. These publications are generally written by
members of the judiciary at the JSB's request. These include journals and leaflets, and a
range of bench books which provide practical assistance to judges in hearing cases,
including:
1. Specimen Directions
2. Civil Bench Book
3. Family Bench Book
4. Equal Treatment Bench Book
5. District Judges (Magistrates Court) Bench Book
6. Youth Court Bench Book
In addition, it published a range of journals and leaflets:
1. Tribunals journal
2. Reporting Restrictions: Crown Court
3. Reporting Restrictions: Magistrates Court
4. Race and the courts
5. Equality before the courts
The JSB also holds occasional seminars on 'Training-the-trainers' whose aim is: 'to
equip those with training responsibilities with the competences they require in order to
understand how to devise and provide effective and appropriate training to judges.’

Analysis of the British experience highlights a curious but very important issue relating to
facilitating the introduction of formalized programs of judicial development, and to
addressing the existence of certain judicial sensitivities pertaining to the need to be
trained.
Sensitization – While this may seem strange to non-judges, many senior judges of “the
old school” did not necessarily spontaneously recognize the needs for and the benefits
of formalized training. This was doubtless because in a merit-based system of
appointment where they had been appointed for outstanding competence from their
peers, they epitomized the successful self-directed learner, and presumably saw their
earlier careers as demonstrating their capability to learn whatever they need to know
without outside help of a formally organized process. In other words, many saw the
introduction of a training program as being both redundant and potentially insulting.
The Judicial Studies Board confronted this sensitivity in its earlier years, and has publicly
commented that the use of educational terminology – with its connotations of pedagogy
which may be seen by judges and educators alike as inappropriate – is generally
avoided. Such are these sensitivities that the Judicial Studies Board has remarked on
the "awkward question of nomenclature" regarding the use of such words as 'teach',
'train', 'instruct' and 'student' in relation to professional judges. Interestingly, the Board
overcame these sensitivities by using the term judicial studies, which it defines as "an
organized means of enhancing (the judge's) performance... to enable him to perform his
duties more effectively."53
Seen in the light of this history, the recent endorsements of judicial training by the
superior judiciary in Britain which demonstrate that these sensitivities have been
addressed over the past twenty years, provide an indication of the time required for
education programs to change deeply-held judicial culture and attitudes. This is
particularly relevant when contemplating the time required for programs of training and
development to serve as agents of change in generating leadership and culture change.
Some recent topical examples of training performing this longer term leadership role in
Britain, Australia and other developed countries, relate to judicial attitudes and values to
the disadvantaged, women’s rights and/or the standing and treatment of racial
minorities.
C PAKISTAN
An assessment of the Pakistani experience in introducing judicial training reveals the

existence of significant constraints relating to independence and autonomy which are of
considerable relevance to the judicial authorities in other countries. Other significant
lessons relate to ensuring the financial viability of centrally-delivered training for
provincial judges, and the need to amend judicial service rules so that judges can serve
as trainers without losing seniority.
Context – Pakistan was established in the partition of British India in 1947, and is a
secular Muslim republic of four provinces under transition from a military dictatorship
headed by General Musharraf as president with an elected bicameral legislature. The
population is approximately 150 million people. The economy is largely underdeveloped

and is mainly agricultural, with substantial textile exports. The GDP purchase power
parity per capita is USD 2,000.
Justice system – The justice system is a hybrid based on the post-colonial British
common law model overseen by the apex Islamic Shariat Court. The judiciary comprises
almost 2,000 judges sitting in the federal Shariat and Supreme Courts, provincial High
Courts, and District trial courts exercising civil and criminal jurisdiction. The Supreme
Court has original, federal appellate, and advisory jurisdictions. High Courts have
original and provincial appellate jurisdictions. The Shariat Court determines whether any
law is repugnant to the injunctions of Islam. In addition, there are special courts and
tribunals to deal with specific kinds of cases, such as drug courts, commercial courts,
labor courts, traffic courts, an insurance appellate tribunal, an income tax appellate
tribunal, and special courts for bank offenses.
The Pakistani judicial system has been plagued by various systemic problems that have
hampered the effective administration of justice, due primarily to erosion of its
independence, neglect and under resourcing. Problems include long delays in the
courts; lack of a centralized coordinating body to develop legal and judicial policy; lack of
professional management and case systems management in the courts; lack of budget
resources; shortage of judges; inadequate infrastructure; lack of public access to justice;
and the very serious decline in the standards of legal education and the profession.
While changes have been made over the years to some substantive laws, little has been
done to address some substantive problems. Despite its many shortcomings, the court
system is responsive to reform, and is presently participating in the massive “Access to
Justice Program” valued at USD300m funded by the Asian Development Bank aimed to
improve infrastructure and judicial service delivery to the public.
Judicial education was initially recommended by the First Law Reforms Commission in
1959. This Commission recommended that judges "should receive an intensive practical
training in the functions of a subordinate judge for an adequate period of (one or two
years) before they are allowed to work independently." This was supported by the
Second Law Reforms Commission in 1970 that recommended that "A Judicial Service
Academy be set up to impart training to serving and newly recruited judicial officers in
substantive and procedural law, the art of judgment writing, the appreciation of case law,
the interpretation of Statutes and in the general techniques of planning and organizing
judicial work efficiently and with the least inconvenience to the litigant public." It also
recommended that "Judicial Officers with less than ten years service should also be
selected by rotation for a short intensive course of training of at least three months
duration at the Academy."
The Federal Judicial Academy was established under a Government Resolution in

September, 1988. A permanent campus was established in the capital Islamabad in
1994 comprising lecture theatre, seminar rooms, library and a hostel with a capacity for
52 residential guests. Legal cover to the organization and functioning of the Academy
was provided with the enforcement of the Federal Judicial Academy Act in 1997.

Independence and autonomy – it is essential to ensure that the judicial training institution
is led by the judiciary rather than the executive to avoid the constraints in independent
decision-making exist in both Mongolia and Pakistan. Similarly, there is a need to
delegate as much financial autonomy (accompanied by accountability) as possible in
order to consolidate judicial independence, elicit ownership and buy-in from the judiciary,
and enable the institution to deliver the training which the judiciary perceives it needs.
Constraints in the independence and financial autonomy of institutions have limited the
scope of training services available to the judiciary in both of these countries, and
additionally the Philippines. While it is recognized that there is usually a shortage of
financial resources available for training purposes, it may be observed that independent
judicial training institutions are more likely to be actively supported by donor bodies in
the interests of good governance.
For general supervision of the affairs of the Academy and the achievement of its aims
and objects, a Board of Governors has been constituted under the chairmanship of the
Chief Justice of Pakistan. Other members include the Minister for Law, Justice and
Parliamentary Affairs; Principal Secretary, Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary
Affairs; Attorney-General for Pakistan; Chief Justice of Lahore High Court; Chief Justice
of High Court of Sindh; Chief Justice of Peshawar High Court; Chief Justice of
Baluchistan High Court; and Director General of the Academy.
The management of the Academy is carried on under the general directions of the
Board, by the Director General who is the Principal Accounting Officer as well as
academic and administrative head of the Academy.
The aims and objects of the Academy are:
• Orientation and training of new Judges, Magistrates, Law officers and Court
personnel
• In-service training and education of Judges, Magistrates, Law officers and Court
personnel
• Holding of conferences, seminars, workshops and symposia for improvement of
the judicial system and quality of judicial work
• Publishing of journals, memoirs, research papers and reports.
The Academy is presently expanding its pedagogical techniques for imparting training.
These now include class room lectures by judges, jurists and scholars, supplemented by
panel discussions, scenarios, simulations, problem solving and case studies with
reference to landmark judgments of the superior courts, involving issues both pertaining
to substantive and procedural law. Workshop syndicate discussions also form part of the
training methodology. These aim at providing an opportunity to the participants to
interact and exchange their knowledge and experience with one another; which helps in
analyzing and articulating current juridical issues. Participants are divided into a number
of groups. One of the participants is designated as chairman who prepares, with the
contribution of other members of the group, a report which is presented in the plenary
session, for conclusions and finalization of recommendations.

As a part of the capacity building of the Academy, management has recently introduced
a change mainly in the method of judicial education and training. Hitherto emphasis has
been on dissemination of knowledge and information about substantive law by way of
lecturing. However, the FJA is now employing more useful and effective means of
delivering educational services, with the introduction of a new professional approach to
judicial training based on the theory and principles of adult education. This quite
fundamental shift of approach was made by the Academy in response to the advice of
international educational experts advising the Academy to expand the training agenda
from focusing on transferring legal information to improving court performance through
developing the skills of good judging. In terms of content, this will focus not just on
substantive law, but on the skills and disposition of judging. In terms of method, lecturing
will be heavily supplemented by the introduction of small group seminars and workshops
which will build on the active participation of judges in techniques of active learning, such
as problem solving case studies, scenarios and simulations, and also panel discussions
to develop professional skills and judgment which will be supported by the foundation of
information and knowledge. It is important to stress that this training approach will be
considerably more practical and active than theoretical and passive.
The FJA has conducted more than one hundred courses since its inception in 1998, and
has provided training to some 2,098 judges from all provinces. These courses have
included pre-service and in-service refresher training and re-orientation courses,
seminars and workshops. In addition, the Academy conducts lectures and discourses by
eminent scholars and jurists on a range of subjects to equip the trainee judges with
judicial skills which are required to improve the quality of justice with greater stress on
subjects such as the rule of law, alternative dispute resolution, framing charge in criminal
cases, issues in civil matters, the conduct of a judge, court management, etiquettes and
manners, self-management and stress management. Various other topics are also
covered, with particular emphasis on civil practice and procedure, maintenance of court
registers and record, case management, style of judicial reasoning and the process of
decision making. As already noted, the Academy has now developed and extended its
curriculum from being information-focused to being skills-focused. This has involved a
quite profound transition in outlook and pedagogical approach, requiring considerable
provisioning of Training-of-Trainer (ToT) support for the faculty of instructors.
A detailed curriculum of current courses conducted by the FJA is attached as an annex

to this report. The FJA conducts an expanding program of conferences, seminars and
workshops for judges, as well as a model court, together with new programs in computer
training and publications. While this volume of training – notionally suggesting slightly
more than one single training experience per judge over the past six years – is relatively
low compared with more established programs, such as that in Australia where each
judge participates in one week of training every year on an average, it does provide an
indication of volume for comparative purposes.
e. Commentary and lessons learned
There are a number of particular challenges confronting the delivery of judicial training in
the Pakistani experience which have relevance to the judicial authorities in other
jurisdictions. These include independence and financial autonomy, logistics of delivering
centralized training, and accessing high caliber judges to establish core faculty.

1. Independence and financial autonomy – As with Mongolia, the issue of independence
and funding are problematic in principle, but not necessarily in practice. The FJA is a
creature of statute, headed by the Chief Justice, but funded through the Ministry of
Justice. This arrangement means that while theoretically independent, it must curry
favour with the executive through the MoJ to secure its operational survival. This has not
created any overt problems to date, because it is the policy of the Ministry of Justice to
second a sitting judge to serve as its secretary – and, in this way, it can be seen that the
interests of the FJA and the wider judiciary are well understood by the executive. But, it
does highlight the proximity of the relationship between judiciary and executive, and it
should never be forgotten that on two occasions in the past 25 years the executive has
dismissed judicial officers unwilling to re-swear oaths of allegiance to those
administrations.
The impact of this lack of independence is seen in the constraints which exist in judicial
autonomy to determine its own program of training. In practice, the judicial training
institution must not only secure the endorsement of the judicial leadership to its
proposed program of training activities, but this must also be agreed upon by
representatives of the executive in the Ministry of Justice. While there are no visible
examples of clashes between the judiciary and the executive in decision-making, what is
clear is the evident subservience of the judiciary in this decision-making process which
renders it reluctant to place itself in any course of collision. The legacy of this
subservience is all-pervasive and, it is argued, should be avoided from the outset
through the establishment and composition of court-owned and judge-led governance
structures if at all possible.
2. Centralized delivery – While it may be cheaper to establish a single centralized body

to provide training services, this approach transfers the burden of funding the recurrent
logistical costs of travel and accommodation of training judges to provincial or distant
courts, and often creates a significant invisible barrier to participation in practice for
courts with no training budgets. The solution to this problem is to ensure recurrent
funding for travel and accommodation is adequately provisioned. This provisioning
should be centrally allocated to the training institution to ensure coordination in the
allocation of funding. This will enable the national judicial training program to, for
example, provide allowances for the travel/accommodation of distant judges and prevent
funding being spent on unrelated provincial purposes.,
3. Judicial leadership through training faculty – A further problem encountered in

Pakistan is accessing talented judges to serve on the core faculty of trainers. Members
of the judiciary and the subordinate judicial service are promoted on a seniority system
structured around years of sitting in court. Service in the Academy does not qualify for
purposes of promotion and thereby creates a barrier for otherwise upwardly mobile
judges. The consequence of the anomaly is that only those judges whose promotion is
no longer assured, or retirees, volunteer for such posting – hardly an optimal source of
supply. The solution to this barrier, which still exists in Pakistan, is for the judicial
authorities to amend the judicial service rules so that judges can serve as training faculty
without losing their seniority.

D PHILIPPINES
An assessment of the Philippines’ experience in introducing judicial training is

illuminating for judicial authorities around the world in four particular respects relating to
the organizational mission of the training institution, its organizational structure, financial
resources, and the use of IT media.
Context – The Philippines is a democratic republic headed by a president and bicameral

legislature. The population of 85 million people is predominantly Catholic. The economy
is underdeveloped and is service-based and industrial, with a GDP purchase power
parity per capita of USD 4,600.
Justice system – The legal system is a hybrid derived from those of Spain and the
United States. Civil code procedures on family and property and the absence of jury trial
were attributable to Spanish influences, but most commercial statutes are of United
States derivation. There are four main levels of courts: local, regional, national and the
apex Supreme Court. The Supreme Court regulates the practice of law in the
Philippines, and manages the Philippines Judicial Academy (PHILJA), which is
responsible for the provision of judicial education to the courts.
The Philippines Judicial Academy performs what is seen as a vital role in ensuring
judicial competence and efficiency through continuing judicial education. Chief Justice
Hilario G. Davide, Jr. has described it as "the [Supreme] Court's implementing arm and
the nation's watchdog in the pursuit of excellence in the Judiciary."
PHILJA was established by statute in 1996 as a unit of the Supreme Court to be the
training school for justices, judges, court personnel, lawyers and aspirants to judicial
posts. It is mandated to provide and implement a curriculum for judicial education, and to
conduct seminars, workshops and other training programs designed to upgrade their
legal knowledge, moral fitness, probity, efficiency, and capability. The programs of the
Academy enjoy the patronage and support of the Supreme Court, and participation of
the judges is guaranteed: no appointee to the bench may commence the discharge of
his/her adjudicative functions without completing the prescribed courses of the
Academy.
The mission of the Academy is to bring about an institutionalized, integrated, and

professionalized system of continuing judicial education for justices, judges, court
personnel and lawyers aspiring for judicial positions. This system aims not only to
provide knowledge and essential skills expected of members of the bench, but also to
foster desirable traits, values and attitudes, particularly competence, honesty and
integrity. Continuing judicial education is seen as being at the heart of fostering
excellence in the judiciary. It is an indispensable tool for ensuring an effective,
independent and credible judiciary whose members are of proven competence, integrity
and probity.

The objectives of PHILJA are to:
• foster sound values and attitudes, expertise in substantive and procedural law, and
develop management competence through courses, seminars and symposia for
members of the Judiciary and quasi-judicial bodies;
• contribute to available legal literature of scholarly and practical significance to
members of the Judiciary through the publication of a Judicial Journal and Bulletin;
• integrate the Academy's philosophy, principles and objectives and instructional
programs in conventions, seminars, and programs of the association of judges and
of court personnel;
• conduct research to advance the frontiers of juridical science and court technology;
• develop and strengthen networking and partnership with other institutions for the
development and implementation of programs for continuing judicial education.
A detailed curriculum of current courses conducted by PHILJA is attached as an annex

to this report. Generally, it provides a range of courses and publications, which include:
• Pre-Judicature program – month-long introductory program for aspirants to judicial

positions.
• Orientation program – five-day course for newly appointed Judges.
• Immersion program – month-long program for newly appointed Judges
• Career enhancement seminar – four-day seminar to update Judges on substantive
and procedural law
• Workshop for executive judges – management training seminar for Executive
Judges which focuses on Trial Court Performance Standards.
• Regional seminar for judges and clerks – four-day seminar to update Judges and
court personnel on new laws.
• Programs for judicial personnel
• Mediation – basic workshop on mediation
• Special focus programs – Shari'a, Family, Child Protection, Intellectual Property,
etc
• Bulletin – Quarterly newsletter to provide updates on new rulings of the Supreme
Court, orders and circulars, and other news and current events.
• Judicial Journal – Quarterly newsletter to provide a forum on the justice system,
through lectures and papers
• Electronic alerts – Monthly issue on Supreme Court business and decisions online.
• Electronic updates – Quarterly legal update in CD-ROM format, which contains
laws, statutes, new doctrines, administrative resolutions, orders and circulars.
There are four particular aspects of the Philippines’ experience which warrant the
specific consideration of the judicial authorities abroad as lessons to be learned. These
relate to the organizational mission, organizational structure, financial resources, and the
use of IT media.
1. Organizational mission – The issue of organizational mission warrants specific

comment. While it is relatively straight forward for the mandate of any judicial training

institution to prescribe the promotion of competence as its overarching objective, it is
important to ensure adequate specificity in its mission. In PHILJA’s case this is lacking.
PHILJA’s mandate exhibits a generality in words, being to “foster sound values and
attitudes, expertise in substantive and procedural law, and develop management
competence through courses, seminars and symposia for members of the Judiciary and
quasi-judicial bodies.” While this mission is clear it is not specific.
A more useful approach can be found, for example, in the policy of the Judicial
Commission of New South Wales, which is much more specific, providing that “(t)he
purpose of this scheme of continuing judicial education is to assist judicial officers in the
performance of their duties by enhancing professional expertise, facilitating development
of judicial knowledge and skills, and promoting the pursuit of juristic excellence.” It then
outlines twelve separate service components which specify how that mission will be put
into effect. It is argued that a more focused mission is useful in guiding and informing the
operations of the institution.
2. Organizational structure – In a recent review conducted on the structure and

operations of PHILJA, it was concluded that it suffered from poor training resources,
weak management systems and a lack of financial management and administrative
autonomy, in this instance, from the Supreme Court. Remediation has been proposed
with an organizational restructure, and introduction of a new decentralized approach,
with greater budgetary autonomy and accompanying financial accountability. This said, it
is premature to advocate a particular organizational ‘model’ or structure for other courts
at this stage. Generally speaking, there is no “one-size-fits-all” model because different
missions and objectives require different organizational structures and institutional
capabilities. What is more important is a universal endorsement of the principle for firmly
established organizational systems which clearly define institutional mission and
objectives, and organizational roles and responsibilities. Moreover, it is important to
ensure that management of the judicial training centre has clearly focused areas of
responsibility – for example, administration, course development, program delivery – and
is vested with sufficient operational autonomy to perform their duties in a timely and
efficient manner.
3. Financial viability – It is a relatively universal feature of judicial education around the

world that there is a shortage of financial resources. The reality is however that such
shortages are likely to define the operating environment of those training institutions.
That said, the critical issue is how those resources are allocated and managed. PHILJA,
like the FJA and other institutions, is constrained by this problem. The solution to the
challenge of financial constraint is found in the strategic outlook and managerial direction
of available resources to ensure that they address identified priorities in an educationally
effective manner. Simply because the budget available for judicial training in the
Philippines may be considerably less than that available in Britain does not mean that its
training services are inferior, provided that management is strategically positioned and
the training faculty applies educationally effective methods which are outlined in Part B
of this paper.
4. Use of information technology (IT)-based delivery media – A topical issue which

PHILJA has addressed is the application of innovative information technology-based
media for the transmission of its educational services, specifically electronic alerts,
bulletins and updates. While there is no available information on the extent to which

trainees value these different kinds of training opportunities, it is understood that the
development of these alternative/remote media is in response to judicial demand, and
this is not surprising in a relatively technologically developed country such as the
Philippines. This is similarly the case in the United States and Australia where judges
are increasingly accustomed to working with computers on a day-to-day basis. This
raises issues for a developing jurisdiction as to the extent it invests in ‘old’ technology of
conventional educational and publishing media, and the ‘new’ information technology-
based communication and information strategies. As much as possible, the latter course
is recommended for the consideration of judicial authorities as it embeds longer term
solutions from the outset to the judicial training approach.
E MONGOLIA
An assessment of the Mongolian experience in recently introducing judicial training

reveals the existence of two fundamental issues which are of considerable relevance to
the judicial authorities in other jurisdictions. These once again relate to the
independence and autonomy of the training institution and to its financial viability, as
outlined below.
Context – Mongolia is a parliamentary republic. The president is directly elected as head

of state with a single chamber legislature (Great Hural) which elects the prime minister.
Mongolia was a communist regime until 1990 when it introduced a new democratic
constitution and ceased dependence on the former Soviet Union. It is a large landlocked
country sharing borders with China and Russia. It has a population of 2.5 million people,
most of whom are Buddhist. The economy, which is service-based and agricultural, is
currently undergoing major market reform, involving introduction of free pricing,
privatization and a stock market. The gross domestic product (GDP) purchase power
parity per capita is USD 1,900.
Justice system – The Mongolian judicial system comprises some 400 judges and
consists of a four-tier hierarchy of the apex Constitutional Court, Supreme Court, aimag
or district-level court. The Mongolian judiciary is now independent of the other branches
of government, and in recent years many of the responsibilities of the MoJ’s Council of
Courts have been transferred to the judiciary. All judges must have a law degree, and
have been trained under the socialist system. The workload of judges has increased
substantially over the last few years and the types of cases they deal with have
changed. Under the socialist system, most of their work was criminal. Now two-thirds of
the cases are civil, involving commercial and contractual disputes, and bankruptcies.
Many judges find the new disputes they are called to deal with confusing. Much free
market legislation has recently been enacted, but most judges were trained before the
introduction of these reforms. There has been little new training over recent years,
though judges have recently started to participate in continuing education.
The Constitution of 1992 formalized the separation of powers between the judicial and
other branches of government, enshrining the judiciary's independent status. Under the
previous system, while it was nominally independent, the judiciary was effectively
controlled by the ruling communist party. Judges were appointed by committees of the
party, and party membership was an unwritten requirement. The party could put
pressure on a judge to decide a case in a particular way, and it was also common for
citizens to use their personal contacts with high ranking officials to try to influence
judicial decisions. Although the party had no power to override a judicial decision, it

could summon the judge to appear before a party committee to explain the result, and
this in turn could lead to the judge being discredited or simply not reappointed. Now
judges are subject only to law, and judicial power is vested exclusively in the courts. The
government must respect the independence and impartiality of the judiciary, and in turn
judges must abstain from political activity.
The new Constitution also introduced judicial standards that are embodied in the United
Nations Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary, such as the right to a fair
trial, the right to counsel, and the presumption of innocence. The court structure has
been significantly transformed by reducing the number of courts, abolishing the military
and railway courts, and introducing a constitutional court.
On May 4, 2000 the Great Hural passed the "Strategic Plan for the Justice System of
Mongolia". This involves a substantial legal training component, which is now being
implemented through a Judicial Reform Program (JRP). This strategic plan focuses on
court management and administration; case management; training and continuing legal
education; establishment of a qualification system for legal professionals; ethics in the
legal profession; and clarification of the organization, structure, jurisdiction and
responsibilities of justice system agencies.
The continuing judicial and legal education component of this strategy supports the new
National Legal Center (NLC) to build capacity to provide a unified program of retraining
and professional advancement of Mongolian legal professionals, including judges and
lawyers.
Mongolia made a voluntary smooth transition to a democracy and market economy. To

do this, a new constitution and many new laws were passed. This obviously required
retraining of the judiciary. The judiciary is now implementing the "Strategic Plan for the
Justice System of Mongolia," adopted in 2000.
The Mongolia Judicial Reform Program (JRP), a project of the National Center for State
Courts funded by the US Agency for International Development, began in April 2001. In
2002, at the request of the Ministry of Justice, the JRP presented direct training to
judges and prosecutors. The bulk of training activity is in Training-of-Trainers and
assisting Mongolian stakeholders in presenting their own continuing legal education. In
November 2002, parliament established the National Legal Center (NLC) as the primary
provider of transition and continuing education for judges and lawyers. The NLC is an
entity of the Ministry of Justice and Home Affairs, rather than the General Council of the
Courts.
The NLC has formulated a strategic plan for unified continuing education for judges and
lawyers in Mongolia. The mission of the NLC is to (a) improve the legal knowledge and
professional skills of judges and lawyers in conformity with the constitution, modern legal
theories, legal reform and the current needs of the judiciary; and (b) to introduce

approaches/ experience/ practices/ thinking/ attitudes to work fairly, independently and
creatively in adherence to the principles of lawful statehood and the professional ethical
norms.
• The Continuing Legal Education (CLE) consists of improving legal skills,

knowledge and qualifications, retraining and acquisition of new skills which will
continue through the period of judges’ and lawyers’ performance of their jobs and
duties. Its objectives are:
o To create conditions and environments that will insist on constant

inspiration of judges and lawyers to study under the laws, policies and
code of ethics of the organization or according to the needs and demands
of the market economy.
o To develop and implement a unified training program to ensure continuity
of systematized long-term and short-term training activities for legal
professionals.
o To create a training cycle to let judges, advocates, prosecutors and other
legal professionals attend retraining regularly.
The NLC is now introducing continuing training courses for judges and prosecutors, and
will shortly develop a training program for newly-appointed judges and prosecutors,
applying the following principles:
• The system of CLE should be realistic and functional.

• The system of CLE should be democratic.
• The system of CLE should be consistent.
• The system of CLE should be accessible.
• The CLE system should be fair, independent, business-like and supportive to the
developmental process of the judicial organizations.
• The primary goal of the CLE will be quality training based on the needs and
demands of legal professionals.
Both the judiciary and legal profession are very small. Therefore, training is consolidated
in the NLC. The NLC has an Education Committee and three subcommittees: judges,
prosecutors, and advocates. The NLC has a Director, Assistant Director, and Division
Managers.
The detailed current curriculum of the NLC is attached as an annex to this report.
Accomplishments to date in developing a continuing education program for judges and
lawyers have included:
• Training-of-Trainers – building a sustainable pool of CLE trainers

• Assistance to the National Legal Center – study tour and advice on strategic plans
• First induction course for new judges
• Video on trial of a domestic violence case
• Manuals on Company Law and Contract Law
• Direct training to judges and advocates in the capital and all districts on criminal
code, criminal procedure code, civil code, civil procedure code, ethics, and advocacy

• Present Training-of-Trainers courses
• Develop a continuing education curriculum for judges
• Develop alternative dispute resolution (ADR) training
• Develop creative, interactive judicial ethics courses with the NLC
• Motivate improved decision writing by judges
• Support planning retreats for the NLC Governing Board and Judicial Education
Subcommittee.
The NLC's strategies plan, action plan, and tentative curriculum schedule are attached.
e. Commentary and lessons learned
Analysis of the Mongolian experience indicates the existence of two significant

constraints in the selection of approach, what might be termed the NLC model, which
are relevant for the consideration of other judicial authorities.
1. Independence and autonomy – In November 2002, Parliament established the

National Legal Center as the primary provider of transition and continuing education for
judges, as well as most lawyers. The NLC is an entity within the Ministry of Justice &
Home Affairs, not the General Council of the Courts. Arguably, an independent NGO
model might free the judiciary from any control by the executive branch more than is at
present possible. It would also free private lawyers from any educational control by the
executive branch. However, Mongolia is a small developing country, and the government
thought that consolidation of training into one government institution was the most likely
way to ensure sustainability. This strategy was evidently endorsed by USAID as a donor
supporting this approach. It does however restrict the extent of judicial ownership and
autonomy in decision-making. This factor risks restricting judicial independence and the
willingness of judges to participate voluntarily and actively in the program, thereby
potentially limiting its educational effectiveness.
2. Financial viability – The NLC has a small budget, but it is sizable by comparison to
some other Mongolian government departments. The NLC is empowered to charge fees
for its course to private lawyers and for its publications. It hopes to generate enough
revenue that way. It is also running a bar review course for candidates taking the
national lawyer qualification examination, and it can charge for that. The NLC plans to
rent out its classroom facilities to generate extra revenue. While these concerns of
financial viability obviously preoccupy managerial attention which would otherwise be
devoted to developing the judicial program, they do at least for the present underwrite
the operational viability of the program.
***

ENDNOTES
1
The views expressed in this paper build on earlier researches of the author published in: Armytage L,
Educating Judges – Towards a New Model of Continuing Judicial Learning, Kluwer (London/Boston), 1996;
Armytage L, Judicial Education on Equality, The Modern Law Review, 1995, 58, 160-186; Armytage L,
‘Need for Continuing Judicial Education," University of New South Wales Law Journal, 1993, 16, 536-584;
Armytage L, "Evaluating the Impact of Judicial Education," Journal of Judicial Administration, 1994, 4, 35-
63; and Armytage L, “Pakistan’s Law & Justice Sector Reform Experience - Some Lessons,” Law, Social
Justice and Global Development Journal, (LGD) 2003, 2.
2
Canada has been notable in the development of social context education. See, for example, Mahoney
Kand Martin S, Equality and Judicial Neutrality, Toronto: Carswell, 1987; and Mahoney K, “Gender Bias in
Judicial Decisions”, The Judicial Review, 1993, 1, 197-217.
3
Educating Judges, 12-18.
4
World Bank, Initiatives in Legal and Judicial Reform, 2004.
5
World Bank, Legal and Judicial Reform: Strategic Directions, 2003.
6
United States, Australia, Pakistan, Nepal, Bangladesh, Palestine, Tonga, Fiji, Cambodia, Mongolia, Haiti,
PNG, Maldives, Philippines, China, Vietnam and India, among others.
7
Sallmann P, Comparative Judicial Education in a Nutshell, Journal of Judicial Administration, 1993, 2, 245-
255, 252.
8
Nicholson RD, "Judicial Independence and Accountability: Can They Co-exist?" Australian Law Journal,
1993, 67, 404-426 (hereafter, Nicholson, ALJ, 1993), 425.
9
Educational theorists have developed a number of models to describe this process, most almost
universally built on the classic approach of Ralph Tyler. In the arena of continuing professional education,
Houle's Triple-Mode Model is most frequently endorsed as providing a conceptual means to strengthen
professional performance. Houle identifies two basic goals of professional education which are: [T]he
mastery of new theoretical knowledge and practical knowledge and skill relevant to a profession, and the
habitual use of this knowledge and skill to solve the problems that arise in practice. Catlin DW, "An Empirical
Study of Judges' Reasons for Participation in Continuing Professional Education," The Justice System
Journal, 1982, 7, 2, 236-256. Houle CO, Continuing Learning in the Professions, San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass, 1980. Tyler RW, Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction. Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
1949; and, Armytage L, Educating Judges, 1996.
10
Principles & Standards of Continuing Judicial Education, National Association of States Judicial Educators
(NASJE), 1991, 1. NASJE, Commentary on Preamble, 3 and 6.
11
Id
12
Riches AL, "Judicial Education - A Look at the Overseas Experience," The Australian Law Journal, 1990,
64, 189-202, 190.
13
Hudzik JK, "The Continuing Education of Judges and Court Personnel," Judicial Education Network, 1989,
(hereafter, Hudzik 1989), 5.
14
Catlin, 32; Catlin is the founding head of the Michigan Judicial Institute.
15
See, for example, Wood J, The Prospects for a National Judicial Orientation Program in Australia, Journal
of Judicial Administration, 1993, 3, 75-96.
16
75% of these programs are state-based, 17% are for the federal judiciary, and the remainder are
nationally-conducted; Hudzik 1993, 205.
17
Judicial Studies Board, Report for 1983-1987, 13.
18
Judicial Studies Board, Report for 1991-1995, 4.
19
Partington M, "Training the Judiciary in England and Wales: The Work of the Judicial Studies Board," Civil
Justice Quarterly, 1994, 319-336, 322. This is supported by calls outside the judiciary for more education;
see, for example, Holland A, "Training Judges," New Law Journal, 1993, 143, 895.
20
Sallmann PA, "Judicial Education: Some Information and Observations," Australian Law Journal, 1988,
62, 981-1005, (hereafter, Sallmann 1988), 981.
21
Kennedy GA, "Training for Judges?" University of New South Wales Law Journal, 1987, 10, 47-59, 48.
22
Mason A, The Role of the Judge, Inaugural Judicial Orientation Program, Sydney,1994, (as yet
unpublished paper).
23
Kolb D, Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development, New York:
Prentice Hall, 1984; and, Darkenwald G & Merriam S, Adult Education: Foundations of Practice, New York:
Harper & Row, 1982.
24
Knowles MS, The Modern Practice Of Adult Education: From Pedagogy to Andragogy, Chicago: Follett,
1980, 43-44, and 57-58 (note earlier 1970 edition bi-lined Andragogy versus Pedagogy, 39); see also
Knowles MS, The Adult Learner: a Neglected Species (2nd Ed.) Houston: Gulf, 1973, 55-59.

25
Brookfield SD, Understanding and Facilitating Adult Learning, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1986, 91.
26
Cross KP, Adults as Learners, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1981, 233-4.
27
Johnstone JW & Rivera RJ, Volunteers for Learning Chicago: Aldine, 1965, 3. Cross observes that
nothing in the myriad of surveys since has changed that general conclusion - Cross, 91.
28
Houle advances two central propositions: first, that there is commonality between the continuing education
of many professions (14-15); and second, that professional education is distinctive to adult education (49-73,
and 121); see also, Cervero, RM, Effective Continuing Education for Professionals, San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass, 1988, 15-16; and Grotelueschen AD, "Assessing Professionals' Reasons for Participating in
Continuing Professional Education," in Cervero RM and Scanlon CL (Ed) Problems and Prospects in
Continuing Professional Education, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1985, 34-35.
29
See, for example: Cross, 1981, 45-46, 82; Brookfield SD, Understanding and Facilitating Adult Learning,
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1986, 171; Cervero 77.
30
Houle 1980, 121. Grotelueschen endorses this conclusion: Grotelueschen 1985, 34-35.
31
Cervero 1988, 15-16.
32
Schon 1987, 32-33.
33
Cross, 193.
34
Schon 1983, 23.
35
Smutz WD & Queeney DS, "Professionals as Learners: A Strategy for Maximizing Professional Growth,"
in Cervero RM, Azzaretto JF & Tallman D, 1990, 183-205, 186.
36
Catlin DW, The Relationship between Selected Characteristics of Judges and their Reasons for
Participating in Continuing Professional Education, unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan: Michigan
State University, 1981, 125; see also, Catlin DW, "An Empiric Study of Judges' Reasons for Participation in
CPE," The Justice System Journal, 1982, 7, 2, 236-256. Catlin's research has revealed that judges' reasons
for participation are complex and multidimensional. Three underlying factors emerged from analysis of
judges' reasons for participation which, in order of importance, were judicial competence, collegial
interaction, and professional perspective. Catlin found that significant relationships exist between these
participation factors and judges' characteristics including their sex, years since qualifying, tenure on current
bench and court level currently served. Thus, Catlin concludes that it is wrong to assume that participation
is primarily a function of program content in formulating curricula and designing programs.
37
Compare the empirical findings of Catlin with those of Cervero relating specifically to physicians and
veterinarians specifically: Cervero R, "A Factor Analytic Study of Physicians' Reasons for Participation in
Continuing Education," Journal of Medical Education, 56, 1981, 29-35.
38
Catlin 1981, 125.
39
Catlin 1981, 126.
40
Herrmann N, The Creative Brain, Lake Lure, N. Carolina: Ned Herrmann/Brain Books, 1989; Herrmann
argues that judges tend to learn in a distinctively "left brained" style - characterized for being logical,
analytical, problem-solving, controlled, conservative and organizational; additionally, judges tend to be
intensely autonomous and self-directed in their preferred learning practices; see also comparison of left-
mode and right-mode characteristics in Kolb, 49 and 141; and application of the "Myers-Briggs Type
Indicator" to lawyer types, American Bar Association Journal, July 1993 74-78. If these various observations
of the characteristics of lawyers and judges are valid, this raises the vexed question whether the practice of
law creates these characteristics in practitioners or whether persons with these characteristics are attracted
to practice in the law. Detailed exploration of this issue, and its full implications for educators, remains a
matter for further research. Claxton & Murrell, 1992, address a chapter on "Learning Styles of Judges,"
however this work is an application of Kolb's general work on experiential learning, and lacks any grounding
in empirical data distinctive to judicial learning; see Kolb DA, Experiential Learning, Englewood Cliffs NJ:
Prentice Hall, 1984.
41
Armytage L, The Need for Continuing Judicial Education, 16 University of NSW Law Journal, 536.
42
Catlin, Armytage, op cit.
43
It remains to be seen through empirical analysis what impact on the nature of judicial education contextual
variables such as jurisdic model, appointment procedure, tenure and prior professional experience, judicial
role and position may have.
44
Recognition of the importance of judicial training being court-owned and judge-led arises from the work of
Ralph Tyler and CO Houle in the arena of continuing professional education. More specifically relating to
judicial training, see Catlin DW, "An Empirical Study of Judges' Reasons for Participation in Continuing
Professional Education," The Justice System Journal, 1982, 7, 2, 236-256. Houle CO, Continuing Learning
in the Professions, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1980. Tyler RW, Basic Principles of Curriculum and
Instruction. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1949; and, Armytage L, Educating Judges: Towards a
new model of judicial learning, Kluwer Law International, 1996, The Hague; and Armytage L, “Judicial
Education on Equality,” The Modern Law Review, 1995, 180/1.

45
The author gratefully acknowledges the generous assistance provided by the Federal Judicial Academy of
Pakistan, the Philippines Judicial Academy, Ms Mary-Fran Edwards of the Mongolia Judicial Reform
Program; the Australian Institute of Judicial Administration, the Judicial Commission of News South Wales,
and the Judicial Studies Board of the United Kingdom, the United States Agency for International
Development, and the Asian Development Bank in researching this paper.
46
Houle, Continuing Learning in the Professions (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1980) pp 14, 271.
47
Shetreet, Judges on Trial - A Study of the Appointment and Accountability of the English Judiciary
(Oxford: North-Holland Publishing, 1976); see also Shetreet, ‘The Limits of Judicial Accountability:
A Hard Look at the Judicial Officers Act 1986’ (1987) 10 U New South Wales LJ 4, 7.
48
Mason, Sir Anthony, Chief Justice, opening address (unreported), inaugural national judicial orientation
programme, 3 October 1994, Sydney.
49
Nicholson (Justice of the Supreme Court of Western Australia), ‘Judicial Independence and Accountability:
Can They Co-exist?’ (1993) 67 Australian LI 404 - 426, 425. Judicial education is now an accepted part of
judicial life in many countries ... Judicial independence requires that the judicial branch is accountable for its
competency and the proposition is now accepted as beyond debate.
50
Lord Hailsham, Hamyln Revisited: The British Legal System Today (London: Stevens & Sons, 1983) pp
50 - 51.
51
For example, see the work of Justice McGarvie (then Justice of the Supreme Court of Victoria; now
Governor of Victoria): McGarvie, 'The Foundations of Judicial Independence in a Modern Democracy' (1991)
J Judicial Administration 1, 33; 'The Ways Available to the Judicial Arm of Government to Preserve Judicial
Independence' (1992) J Judicial Administration 1,236-277; and Nicholson, 'Judicial Independence and
Judicial Organisation: A Judicial Conference for Australia?' (1993) J Judicial Administration 2, 143-161.
52
The English experience is outlined by Partington, ‘Training the Judiciary in England and Wales: the Work
of the Judicial Studies Board’ (1994) CJQ 319 - 336.
53
Judicial Studies Board, Report for 1983-87, London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office, Paragraph 3.5, 13;
and Paragraph 3.2, 12.

Nji CA Judges Learners

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Nji CA Judges Learners

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Nji CA Judges Learners

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2ND INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON THE TRAINING OF THE JUDICIARY

It is now timely to review this experience. The introduction of formalised judicial

Judges as learners are characterised as being rigorously autonomous, having an

In developed countries, the institutionalization of judicial education is very recent, and

Judges as Learners- Reflections of Principle and Practice Armytage L, 2004 1

Clearly, judicial education has experienced an extraordinary growth in recent years,

Most important, there is a doctrinal imperative to strengthen the capacity and

Judges as Learners- Reflections of Principle and Practice Armytage L, 2004 2

As a part of the building of independence, judicial education assists the judiciary to

Mission and objectives

to maintain and improve the professional competency of all persons performing

They outline the objectives of judicial education to be:-

Judges as Learners- Reflections of Principle and Practice Armytage L, 2004 3

Recognition of the need for continuing education by the judiciary – as a profession -

Judicial studies are no longer a novelty .... No competent and conscientious

In Australia, judicial education is similarly established and, in the words of Sallmann,

Judges as Learners- Reflections of Principle and Practice Armytage L, 2004 4

In broad terms, judges epitomize adult learners. Adult learning is a complex

The application of learning theory, specifically humanistic and developmental

Adults participate in continuing education for a variety of reasons: to become a better

Judges as Learners- Reflections of Principle and Practice Armytage L, 2004 5

Continuing professional development

Schon, in developing a model of professional knowledge, argues that the context of a

Judges as Learners- Reflections of Principle and Practice Armytage L, 2004 6

In essence, professionals exhibit certain general characteristics as learners which are

Cervero argues that continuing professional development should be seen as a self-

[I]t is evident that professionals require guidance and assistance in structuring

Judges as Learners- Reflections of Principle and Practice Armytage L, 2004 7

Added to this, the circumstances characterizing the process of appointment on merit to

Judges as Distinctive Learners

i Judicial appointment and tenure

The process of selection determines appointment to judicial office, and establishes a

Judges as Learners- Reflections of Principle and Practice Armytage L, 2004 8

There is emerging evidence of judges as a profession exhibiting preferred learning

iii Doctrinal constraints of judicial independence

It is imperative to preserve judicial independence within any Westminster system of

iv Reasons for participating in continuing education

Model of judicial education

Judicial learning is a complex process. Judges, as professionals, exhibit characteristics,

• doctrinal imperative to preserve judicial independence

As already discussed, the pursuit of competence is a crucial element in the rationale to

Judges as Learners- Reflections of Principle and Practice Armytage L, 2004 9

The essence of judging is a highly complex, intellectual, problem-solving process which

a judicial competence - the need to maintain an acceptable level of competence

Judges as Learners- Reflections of Principle and Practice Armytage L, 2004 10

4 REVIEW OF EXPERIENCE – LESSONS LEARNED

Judges as Learners- Reflections of Principle and Practice Armytage L, 2004 11

a. developing effective partnerships with the executive

• Independence and autonomy – it is essential to ensure that the judicial training

The impact of a lack of independence is seen in the constraints which exist in

Judges as Learners- Reflections of Principle and Practice Armytage L, 2004 12

• Governance structure – In addition to embedding the leadership and

• Judicial leadership through training faculty – It is a universal feature of

• Resources and financial viability – It is a relatively universal feature of judicial

Judges as Learners- Reflections of Principle and Practice Armytage L, 2004 13

• Organizational mission and structure – It is important that the mission of the

• Participation policy – Approaches to participation vary from country to country.

• Accessibility and use of information technology (IT)-based delivery media – as

• Sensitization – A common feature confronting the introduction of judicial training

Substantive law and court procedure

Judicial management and administration skills

Judicial disposition – social context - outlook, attitude and values

Generic management and administrative skills