Public Confidence in the Judiciary: Several Aspects of Publicity of the Judicial Activities
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##
Abstract
The article presents some reflections concerning the concept and limits of publicity of the judicial activities and the impact of the latter over the public confidence in the judiciary.
Although the complication of interrelation between the judiciary and the members of general publics is to the certain extent determined by the mere nature of the judicial activities, namely the public confidence in the judiciary is a criterion directly determining the level of positive communication between the members of the society and courts. Recent surveys of public opinion in Lithuania still reflect dissatisfactory results concerning the public confidence in judiciary which enables the author to declare that there is a problem of miscommunication between them.
Taking into account the results of the last investigations in the mentioned field three important groups of factors influencing the public confidence in the judiciary may be distinguished: 1) publicity of judicial activities, 2) duration of court proceedings, and 3) behaviour of a judge during the trial (judicial ethics). Although none of the mentioned factors may be given a prima facie meaning, only the first one - publicity of judicial activities, directly influences all the members of general publics, whether involved in court proceedings or not. Although the Lithuanian judiciary evidently fulfils the task of protection of human rights and freedoms, public opinion remains unambiguous – judicial system lacks publicity.
The concept of „publicity of judicial activities“contains different meanings. For the practicing lawyer, judge, prosecutor or law student publicity of judicial activities first of all means publicity of the court hearing and material of the case (publicity in a narrow sense), whereas for the other members of society (mostly politicians, sociologists, journalists, etc.) the concept „publicity of judicial activities“ is foremost connected to the activities of courts as public institutions: their openness, transparency and accountability (publicity in a broad sense).
Taking into account the recent demands of democratic society, it may be concluded that the attitude towards the publicity of judicial activities in a narrow sense is no longer sufficient. Although unconditioned publicity of judicial activities is impossible due to the necessity to follow the general principles of judicial procedure (e.g. protection of private life, independence of the judiciary, etc.), it is desirable to expand this concept to the submission of accessible information on the functioning of courts to the members of general publics.
Publicity of judicial activities in a broader sense is needful not only for the members of the society, but also courts themselves, as public confidence is a prerequisite to the effective functioning of the judiciary. That enables to declare that courts themselves should be concerned with the provision of information to the publics.
After the analysis of the existing sources of information on judicial activities, their advantages and shortcomings, the author tries to suggest some additional measures that courts themselves could take in order to inform the society about the judicial activities.
Although the complication of interrelation between the judiciary and the members of general publics is to the certain extent determined by the mere nature of the judicial activities, namely the public confidence in the judiciary is a criterion directly determining the level of positive communication between the members of the society and courts. Recent surveys of public opinion in Lithuania still reflect dissatisfactory results concerning the public confidence in judiciary which enables the author to declare that there is a problem of miscommunication between them.
Taking into account the results of the last investigations in the mentioned field three important groups of factors influencing the public confidence in the judiciary may be distinguished: 1) publicity of judicial activities, 2) duration of court proceedings, and 3) behaviour of a judge during the trial (judicial ethics). Although none of the mentioned factors may be given a prima facie meaning, only the first one - publicity of judicial activities, directly influences all the members of general publics, whether involved in court proceedings or not. Although the Lithuanian judiciary evidently fulfils the task of protection of human rights and freedoms, public opinion remains unambiguous – judicial system lacks publicity.
The concept of „publicity of judicial activities“contains different meanings. For the practicing lawyer, judge, prosecutor or law student publicity of judicial activities first of all means publicity of the court hearing and material of the case (publicity in a narrow sense), whereas for the other members of society (mostly politicians, sociologists, journalists, etc.) the concept „publicity of judicial activities“ is foremost connected to the activities of courts as public institutions: their openness, transparency and accountability (publicity in a broad sense).
Taking into account the recent demands of democratic society, it may be concluded that the attitude towards the publicity of judicial activities in a narrow sense is no longer sufficient. Although unconditioned publicity of judicial activities is impossible due to the necessity to follow the general principles of judicial procedure (e.g. protection of private life, independence of the judiciary, etc.), it is desirable to expand this concept to the submission of accessible information on the functioning of courts to the members of general publics.
Publicity of judicial activities in a broader sense is needful not only for the members of the society, but also courts themselves, as public confidence is a prerequisite to the effective functioning of the judiciary. That enables to declare that courts themselves should be concerned with the provision of information to the publics.
After the analysis of the existing sources of information on judicial activities, their advantages and shortcomings, the author tries to suggest some additional measures that courts themselves could take in order to inform the society about the judicial activities.
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##
Section
Articles
Authors contributing to Jurisprudence agree to publish their articles under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Public (CC BY-NC-ND) License, allowing third parties to share their work (copy, distribute, transmit) and to adapt it, under the condition that the authors are given credit, and that in the event of reuse or distribution, the terms of this licence are made clear.
Authors retain copyright of their work, with first publication rights granted to the Association for Learning Technology.
Please see Copyright and Licence Agreement for further details.
Authors retain copyright of their work, with first publication rights granted to the Association for Learning Technology.
Please see Copyright and Licence Agreement for further details.
