Journal of Judicial Administration (JJA)
Contemporary developments in judicial systems and court administration
About the Journal
The Journal of Judicial Administration (ISSN: 1036-7918) is a leading forum for the discussion of contemporary issues impacting on judicial administration.
The Journal features informed discourse on areas such as:
• the efficient and effective operation of Courts, Tribunals and quasi-judicial forums;
• the impact of new technology on judicial administration;
• the structure, organisation, financing and management of the Courts and the Court system;
• the appointment, tenure, independence and accountability of judicial officers; and
• education programs to enhance the work performance of justice system personnel.
The Journal of Judicial Administration is published in association with the Australasian Institute of Judicial Administration (AIJA). The articles featured in the Journal are written by leading judges, academics, practitioners and other legal specialists and experts.
Professor Greg J Reinhardt is the Executive Director of the Australasian Institute of Judicial Administration. He is also a member of the Melbourne Law School at the University of Melbourne.
PUBLISHED IN ASSOCIATION WITH THE AUSTRALASIAN INSTITUTE OF JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION.
The following websites contain details of material published in the Journal:
http://legal.thomsonreuters.com.au/australian-legal-journals-index-online/productdetail/85643 (Australian Legal Journals Index)
https://clarivate.com/products/web-of-science/ (Web of Science Emerging Sources Citation Index)
The Australian Legal Journals Index is an online legal database prepared by the Lionel Murphy Library of the Commonwealth Attorney-General’s Department. It is produced by Thomson Reuters and is available via subscription.
The ESCI (Emerging Sources Citation Index) is an online database formerly produced by Thomson Reuters and now maintained by Clarivate Analytics. It is part of the Web of Science Core Collection and is available via subscription.
Subscribe or Purchase
To subscribe to this Journal or purchase individual articles, please visit our “Subscribe or Purchase” page.
For the individual contents pages for each Part, click here.
The August 2011 issue of the Journal of Judical Administration is full of interesting articles on a range of topics, including, but not limited to, the concept of 360-degree feedback for judicial officers, the media, public perception and how these can impact on judges and the concepts and practices of therapeutic jurisprudence and restorative justice, both in Australia and internationally.
In a surprising, but welcome, move, the Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research, Senator Kim Carr, has announced the scrapping of the prescriptive quality indicators for journals.
The grading of journals as A*, A, B or C will no longer be applied and these gradings will no longer be the indicators of research excellence.
The April 2011 issue of Journal of Judicial Administration contains articles on court governance, Queensland’s self-representation services and improving access to justice. It also includes the Table of Authors and the Index for Volume 20.
Over 2009 and 2010, the Australian Research Council undertook to rank journals in the Arts & Humanities Sector as part of the “Excellence in Research for Australia” initiative. Law journals were included in the ranking. Now the rankings that were assigned are being reviewed and new rankings will be released in 2012. Thomson Reuters has observed there may be some unintended long-term consequences of the ERA methodology and outcomes. To communicate these concerns, we have released a position statement.
By Sharyn Roach Anleu and Kathy Mack. Australians place a high value on the importance of courts, though public confidence in the courts and legal system is generally low. Very few Australians have any first-hand experience of their courts, suggesting that most of their information derives from print, electronic and other sources.
Judging, judicial values and judicial conduct in problem-solving courts, Indigenous sentencing courts and mainstream courts
By Dr Michael S King. This article argues that, properly done, judging in problem-solving courts and in Indigenous sentencing courts, and applying therapeutic jurisprudence in judging in mainstream lists does not violate the judicial function or judicial values of independence, impartiality and integrity.
By Hon RS French. Judges today are asked to perform a variety of non-judicial, administrative functions, such as issuing search warrants or preventative detention orders. But are these the kinds of things that judges should do?