Public consultation: judicial qualification requirements

Forum to discuss issues pertaining to the organisation and operations of the judiciary.

Moderator: SC Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Ashcroft Burnham
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1093
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2006 3:21 pm

Public consultation: judicial qualification requirements

Post by Ashcroft Burnham »

[b:3ss5v92f][u:3ss5v92f]Introduction[/b:3ss5v92f][/u:3ss5v92f]
Pursuant to the keen-ness of many to increase the number of judges as soon as possible, I have been working this afternoon on the judicial qualification requirements. The system comprises of two parts: (1) the general procedure for applications and the standards; and (2) the application forms.

I have finished work on the first draft of the former, and I reproduce the same below for public consultation. I will then start working on the application forms, although those will not be released publicly until the application process formally opens, so as not to give any candidates an unfair advantage of having seen the form at an earlier stage.

All of this does, however, unfortunately mean that work on the Code of Procedure will be delayed whilst this work is undertaken, delaying, in turn, the time at which we will have a fully working judicial system.

[b:3ss5v92f][u:3ss5v92f]Timetable[/b:3ss5v92f][/u:3ss5v92f]

This document will be here for public consultation and discussion until Wednesday the 15th of November. On that date, I will, based on the consultation, publish the final version (if different from the existing version), and the application forms. If there is significant demand, I may extend the consultation period.

To ensure that candidates have enough time to complete their application forms fully, and to ensure that all people who are interested have time to apply, applications will be open for two weeks starting on Wednesday, closing on the 29th of November (assuming hat the consultation period has not been extended). If any person publicly applies for the closing date to be extended, or if fewer than two candidates return completed application forms within that time, I will consider extending the deadline.

I will then turn around the marking of those applications within a week, meaning that there should be a list of persons qualified to be judges by the 6th of December (assuming that neither the consultation period or the application deadline has been extended).

Thereafter, the progress of the applications will be out of my hands. I sincerely hope that, by then, there will be a Public Judiciary Scrutiny Panel, so that no more judges have to be appointed by a political body, although I will not delay the process just to ensure that that is so.

[b:3ss5v92f][u:3ss5v92f]The qualification requirements themselves[/b:3ss5v92f][/u:3ss5v92f]

Below is reproduced the list of qualification requirements. Any constructive feedback would be welcome. I also especially welcome (and, indeed, invite) suggestions as to ways of testing, in a written application (any other process would take too long) how some of the qualities can be tested (I have some ideas already, but I suspect that some of the qualities might end up going untested if I do not get any fresh ideas). In particular, I am interested in ideas of how to test fairness, integrity and pragmatism in a written application.

The standards:

***

[b:3ss5v92f]Introduction[/b:3ss5v92f]

The office of Judge of Common Jurisdiction is an important public office in the Confederation of Democratic Simulators, carrying great responsibility. The private interests litigants before the Courts of Common Jurisdiction, and the public interest in the fair and effective administration of justice all rest on the skills and personal abilities of the judges in whose hands a considerable amount of power in disposing of individual cases rests. For that reason, it is of the highest importance that those qualified to be Judges of Common Jurisdiction are of the utmost calibre, both in terms of their legal and general analytic ability, and also their fairness and pragmatism.

This set of requirements is the standard against which applicants for qualification for judicial office will be assessed when the Board of the Judiciary Commission considers completed applications, which applications will be set out according to a form provided. The questions asked will be rigorous ones, since the qualification process, by virtue of who it must qualify, must also be a rigorous one. The standard against which applications must be assessed must take into account in particular the constitutional security of tenure of Judges of Common Jurisdiction, which means that they can only be removed in truly extreme circumstances.

In setting these standards, it is hoped that the judiciary of the Confederation of Democratic Simulators will, as it grows to meet the growing needs of the Confederation, maintain the highest possible standards of integrity, impartiality, fairness, legal knowledge, intellectual and analytic skill, and pragmatism. Only with such standards can a judicial system hope to be respected, or to perform effectively those functions that any judicial system by its nature exists to perform.

[b:3ss5v92f]Assessing applications[/b:3ss5v92f]

All applicants for qualification for judicial office shall have their applications assessed according to their standard in the following areas:

* analytic skill;
* legal knowledge;
* ability to communicate effectively;
* integrity;
* fairness; and
* pragmatism.

Each of the questions (or, in some cases, sets of questions) on the application form will test an applicant's ability in one or more of those areas. The examiner(s) of the Board of the Judiciary Commission will, in respect of each question answered, award one of four grades to each answer in respect of each of the areas outlined above tested:

* outstanding;
* acceptable;
* nearly acceptable; and
* unacceptable.

Each question (or set of questions) will be weighted (by a weighting score of between 1 and 10) as regards each of the six areas tested. In order to be qualified, any candidate must not have any question with an “unacceptable” level of performance, and no more than 10% “nearly acceptable”. “Nearly acceptable” answers in any given area may be offset against “outstanding” answers in that area to a maximum of 25% . That means that, a candidate may pass in relation to any given area with up to 25% answers of “nearly acceptable”, provided that there are (in the case of 25% “nearly acceptable”, diminishing if less) 15% of “outstanding” answers in that area.

A candidate must pass each of the six areas in order to be qualified. However, a candidate who fails two or fewer areas by a small margin, and whose overall performance is considered to indicate real potential for judicial office, may, if he or she reapplies within three months of the promulgation of the result in the original application, need to be assessed again only on those areas on which he or she failed. Whether to award any candidate who would otherwise fail a partial fail is ultimately a matter of discretion for the examiner(s) of the Board of the Judiciary Commission. Thus, there are three possible overall outcomes of a qualification application:

* pass;
* partial fail; and
* fail.

Only candidates who achieve a pass may have their names put forward to the Public Judiciary Scrutiny Panel (or Representative Assembly, if the Public Judiciary Scrutiny Panel is not constituted with at least three members) for appointment.

To ensure that the examiner(s) of the Board of the Judiciary Commission mark applications according to merit, and merit alone, the applications will be anonymised before being passed to the examiner(s). This means that a neutral and trustworthy third party will remove the candidates' name, and replace it with a number, and send the applications on to the examiner(s). The examiner(s) will mark the papers, and return them to the neutral third party, who will publish the results, along with the candidates' true names.

[b:3ss5v92f]Analytic skill[/b:3ss5v92f]

Analytic skill is the abstract ability to understand, analyse and parse information, and the ability and willingness to reach conclusions by, and only by, a process of careful and expressible reasoning. It is the foundation of intellect, which is one of the most important characteristics of any judge. Analytic skill is separate from any particular knowledge or understanding of the law itself, although it is assessed in this context by reference to answers to legal questions. The giving of reasons for decisions is one of the most important functions of any judge, and the ability to reason and analyse well is therefore also of critical importance.

[b:3ss5v92f]Legal knowledge[/b:3ss5v92f]

Legal knowledge is about:

* the ability to learn and remember express statutory and constitutional rules;
* the ability to parse those rules and apply them to particular cases;
* the understanding of how common law systems of precedent operate; and
* the ability to apply the law of the Confederation of Democratic Simulators (and, if necessary, develop that law by judicial precedent) without ever unthinkingly applying a principle of law merely because it is a familiar principle from a first-life jurisdiction, however basic that that principle may appear.

Legal knowledge is similar to analytic skill, since its demonstration requires intellect, but, unlike analytic skill, it is specific to law, and, in particular, to the law of the Confederation of Democratic Simulators. Judges must know not only what the Constitution, statues, delegated legislation and case-law says, but what it means, and how that can be applied to real situations in a fair, reasoned and consistent way. The separateness of our legal system from the laws of first-life legal systems is also important, and litigants cannot be expected to know or follow any given first life system of law. It is essential for its success that our legal system evolves truly independently.

[b:3ss5v92f]Ability to communicate effectively[/b:3ss5v92f]

The ability to understand and apply law, and make judicial decisions, is of little use if that understanding, and those applications and decisions are not effectively communicated. Ability to communicate effectively involves:

* an especially high degree of proficiency in the English language;
* the ability to communicate precisely and comprehensively the reasons for decisions;
* the ability to articulate highly complex and/or abstract concepts and sets of facts clearly;
* the ability to structure long passages of writing so that the meaning can be followed readily;
* the ability to convey authority in court;
* the ability to direct juries in in ways readily understandable but also sufficiently precisely;
* the ability to explain the effects of decisions to unrepresented litigants clearly but precisely;
* generally, the ability to use forms of language and expression suited to the audience and circumstances, without oversimplifying or creating misleading impressions.

Law is always going to be a complex field, so clarity of communication is paramount. It is important that people, not all of whom have a legal background, understand what is being said by judges, but also that attempts at making what is said easy to understand are not taken so far that the vital precision of what is being communicated is compromised. The practice of law is, in many respects, the practice of verbal communication, so the ability to express oneself clearly in words is an inherent part of the ability to be a judge.

[b:3ss5v92f]Integrity[/b:3ss5v92f]

Integrity is more than just about avoiding bias or corruption, although those are important, too, of course; integrity is about giving judgments on the basis of, and only of, the evidence in the case (where the judgment is one of fact), and the legal sources (where the judgment is one of law), and not being influenced by factors that judges should not take into account, such as what is popular, the judge's own political views, or any personal sympathy with the position of one of the litigants. It also means the avoidance of all forms of intellectual dishonesty: sometimes, judges are compelled by the law to reach conclusions that they dislike; they should not, in those circumstances, attempt to find illegitimate ways to reach instead the conclusion that they would prefer. That we do not permit a man to rule, but the law, applies to judges as well as to politicians.

[b:3ss5v92f]Fairness[/b:3ss5v92f]
A judicial system must be fair if it is nothing else: justice means fairness. At the most basic level, fairness requires treating relevantly like cases alike, and relevantly unlike cases unlike. That, in turn, involves an ability to tell which characteristics of similarity or dissimilarity are relevant, which is related to analytic ability.

Beyond that most basic level, fairness involves an understanding of human motivations, the tendency to be steadfastly respectful to people, whatever their background or views, and whatever the judge's personal opinion of the person or her or his conduct; the ability to deal with litigants with politeness and dignity, but, simultaneously, the ability to be very firm when the need arises. Fairness also involves the ability to be firm and decisive, without being arbitrary, and the absence of any form of prejudice or any tendency thereto.

[b:3ss5v92f]Pragmatism[/b:3ss5v92f]
The practice of law is not an academic exercise: real, practical decisions are being made about real situations. Intellectual and academic ability, and the capacity to be fair, are vital, but not sufficient for a person to be an effective judge. Judges must also be practical, and, whilst justice should never be sacrificed for expediency, all other things being equal, it is better to be expedient and expeditious than inexpedient and inexpeditious. In particular, pragmatism involves:

* the ability to manage time effectively so as to discharge judicial duties within a reasonable period;
* the ability to realise what orders of the court (both procedurally and substantively) will and will not work to achieve their desired ends;
* the ability to understand how the unique challenges of operating a judicial system in a virtual world impact on how judicial decisions should be taken and judicial time organised; and
* the ability to distinguish, when making judgments of fact without a jury, or when summing-up to a jury, how realistic that any given suggestion about the facts in dispute made by or on behalf of any litigant really is.

Last edited by Ashcroft Burnham on Sat Nov 11, 2006 5:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Ashcroft Burnham

Where reason fails, all hope is lost.
User avatar
Ashcroft Burnham
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1093
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2006 3:21 pm

Further thoughts

Post by Ashcroft Burnham »

Having considered the matter further, I think that I ought make one small amendment to the overall pass criteria, because the way that they are presently constituted seems to me to be a potential recipe for mediocrity. Instead of just requiring that each of the six areas be "acceptable", there should also be a requirement that a certain proportion (perhaps either 5% of each of three areas, or 10% of each of two areas, or more) be "outstanding" to ensure that the bar is raised high enough that only the best applicants can be qualified as judges. Any constructive comments on this, or the scheme in general, are much appreciated.

Ashcroft Burnham

Where reason fails, all hope is lost.
Publius Crabgrass
Passionate Protagonist
Passionate Protagonist
Posts: 143
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 5:12 pm

Re: Further thoughts

Post by Publius Crabgrass »

[quote="Ashcroft Burnham":3vkwcffs]Having considered the matter further, I think that I ought make one small amendment to the overall pass criteria, because the way that they are presently constituted seems to me to be a potential recipe for mediocrity. Instead of just requiring that each of the six areas be "acceptable", there should also be a requirement that a certain proportion (perhaps either 5% of each of three areas, or 10% of each of two areas, or more) be "outstanding" to ensure that the bar is raised high enough that only the best applicants can be qualified as judges. Any constructive comments on this, or the scheme in general, are much appreciated.[/quote:3vkwcffs]
I'll resist the temptation to post a paean to mediocrity (""So what if he is mediocre? There are a lot of mediocre judges and people and lawyers. They are entitled to a little representation, aren't they? We can't have all Brandeises, Cardozos, and Frankfurters and stuff like that there." -- [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Hruska:3vkwcffs]Sen. Roman Hruska[/url:3vkwcffs]).

Having signed up for the new Simplification group-not-yet-a-faction, I think the procedure for being "qualified" as a judicial nominee should be much *simpler*. Maybe just a short explanation as to why the prospective nominee is interested in becoming a judge, the individual's qualifications, and perhaps even links to the prospective nominee's writings on the forums or elsewhere. After all, our current Chief Judge-for-life didn't jump these hurdles.

These voluntary (and for now, unpaid) positions should not require an SL bar examination. Non-lawyers should be able to be "qualified", and we would probably be better off with some nonlawyers in the judiciary. (There are NO qualifications set out in the US constitution for the US Supreme Court, and it is possible --though admittedly remote -- for a nonlawyer to become a Justice. There was some thought given in the Clinton administration, for example, to nominating nonlawyer former President Jimmy Carter.)

Indeed, *wisdom* should be the quality sought, not legal experience. Let's remember that the job of the judicial branch is to "qualify" candidates for the RA (later, PJSP) confirmation.

User avatar
Ashcroft Burnham
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1093
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2006 3:21 pm

Re: Further thoughts

Post by Ashcroft Burnham »

[quote="Publius Crabgrass":3mq5o3dx]Having signed up for the new Simplification group-not-yet-a-faction, I think the procedure for being "qualified" as a judicial nominee should be much *simpler*.[/quote:3mq5o3dx]

Simpler is only better all things being equal. All things are not equal when qualifying judges, as the introduction made clear. Judges have great power and responsibility, and it is imperative that they are of the highest attainable calibre. We most certainly do not want to enable people with anything other than the right skills to be judges. The success or failure of our whole system rests on it.

[quote:3mq5o3dx]Maybe just a short explanation as to why the prospective nominee is interested in becoming a judge, the individual's qualifications, and perhaps even links to the prospective nominee's writings on the forums or elsewhere. After all, our current Chief Judge-for-life didn't jump these hurdles.[/quote:3mq5o3dx]

Our current Chief Judge was qualified and appointed on the basis of all of the highly detailed work that went into designing our judicial system in the first place. That is at least as rigerous as any examination.

[quote:3mq5o3dx]These voluntary (and for now, unpaid) positions should not require an SL bar examination. Non-lawyers should be able to be "qualified", and we would probably be better off with some nonlawyers in the judiciary. (There are NO qualifications set out in the US constitution for the US Supreme Court, and it is possible --though admittedly remote -- for a nonlawyer to become a Justice. There was some thought given in the Clinton administration, for example, to nominating nonlawyer former President Jimmy Carter.)[/quote:3mq5o3dx]

I shall resist the temptation to draw a parallell with point about the person who said, "[i:3mq5o3dx]When I was a child, they told me at school that anybody could become President [of the United States]. Now that we have [whoever the current president is], I realised that they were right[/i:3mq5o3dx]".

[quote:3mq5o3dx]Indeed, *wisdom* should be the quality sought, not legal experience. Let's remember that the job of the judicial branch is to "qualify" candidates for the RA (later, PJSP) confirmation.[/quote:3mq5o3dx]

The purpose of the system as it is now instituted (i.e., that the serving judiciary qualify people, and the PJSP appoint people) was to ensure that those appointed to judicial office have the necessary degree of judicial skill to be good judges. Judicial skill requires thorough testing because it is both important and inherently complex. One must know the candidate's intellectual abilities, ability to work with the law, capacity to render good judgments, and practical ability. Those multifaceted skills need a multifaceted test. Vagueness, oversimplification and a lack of thoroughness will not do.

Do you have anything more specific to contribute than "it's too complex"? Indeed, can you (or do you want to) say that any of the specific qualities that I have listed are [i:3mq5o3dx]not[/i:3mq5o3dx] necessary for a person to be a good judge?

Ashcroft Burnham

Where reason fails, all hope is lost.
User avatar
Fernando Book
Forum Admin
Forum Admin
Posts: 92
Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2006 2:39 pm

Post by Fernando Book »

This is a set of rules that in an almost automatic way disqualifies every applicant:

who is not a lawyer;
who doesn't come from a country with a common law system;
who hasn't English as first language.

Publius Crabgrass
Passionate Protagonist
Passionate Protagonist
Posts: 143
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 5:12 pm

Post by Publius Crabgrass »

[quote="Fernando Book":1iypuj9v]This is a set of rules that in an almost automatic way disqualifies every applicant:

who is not a lawyer;
who doesn't come from a country with a common law system;
who hasn't English as first language.[/quote:1iypuj9v]

Exactly. The premium placed on legal experience, for example, should be dropped.

User avatar
Chicago Kipling
Passionate Protagonist
Passionate Protagonist
Posts: 151
Joined: Sun Jul 23, 2006 2:07 pm

Post by Chicago Kipling »

If our judiciary is going to have weight and if judges are going to sit for extended time then it is fitting that we have serious requirements that apply to all our sitting judges.

I will raise a note of caution over the note regarding the English language. It would be unwise of us to accept someone who did not understand our laws. That is a noble intent. We do need to be careful though that we make room for those who primarily speak other languages and continue to encourage a diverse international community. We are not an English group. Nor are we a US group. We use English as a matter of convenience. With respect to you, Ashcroft, "an especially high degree of proficiency in the English language" seems far too subjective a wording for what could potentially be restrictive enough to remove all people who speak English as a second language. Would you please makes sure the wording is sufficiently clear that those who speak English as a second language will be accepted if they have a clear understanding of the law and can articulate that?

As a side note, Ashcroft, you may increase citizen confidence if you find someone to administer this test to you.

A good photograph is like a good hound dog, dumb, but eloquent. ~ Eugene Atget
User avatar
Ashcroft Burnham
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1093
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2006 3:21 pm

Post by Ashcroft Burnham »

[quote="Publius Crabgrass":2jsvedx2]Exactly. The premium placed on legal experience, for example, should be dropped.[/quote:2jsvedx2]

"Legal experience" is not one of the items listed. Why do you think that a "preimum", as you put it, is placed on experience, as opposed to skill?

Ashcroft Burnham

Where reason fails, all hope is lost.
User avatar
Ashcroft Burnham
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1093
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2006 3:21 pm

Post by Ashcroft Burnham »

[quote="Chicago Kipling":3mbax6im]I will raise a note of caution over the note regarding the English language. It would be unwise of us to accept someone who did not understand our laws. That is a noble intent. We do need to be careful though that we make room for those who primarily speak other languages and continue to encourage a diverse international community. We are not an English group. Nor are we a US group. We use English as a matter of convenience. With respect to you, Ashcroft, "an especially high degree of proficiency in the English language" seems far too subjective a wording for what could potentially be restrictive enough to remove all people who speak English as a second language. Would you please makes sure the wording is sufficiently clear that those who speak English as a second language will be accepted if they have a clear understanding of the law and can articulate that.[/quote:3mbax6im]

The problem of multiple languages is a difficult one: the reality is that our constitution and statutes, and no doubt most contracts, are all written in English, and that a substantial majority of our population speak (fluently at least) only English. For that reason, unless and until we have all of (1) sub-communities with thier own language that are of sufficient size to have their own local court, (2) enough people who speak that language who also have sufficient judicial skill to be a judge or judges in that court; and (3) a guaranteed reliable means of interpreting the entirety of all court proceedings, judgments and orders into English, all court proceedings will have to be conducted in English.

For the reasons that I gave in the original set of requirements, [i:3mbax6im]linguistic[/i:3mbax6im] ability in the abstract is vital to being a good judge. "Clarity of expression" is one of the six qualification areas. I needed to make it more precise to require the English language because of the necessity that court proceedings be conducted in English for the foreseeable future. That does not, incidentally, require only people for whom English is their [i:3mbax6im]first[/i:3mbax6im] language. Many intelligent and well-educated people who speak English as a second (or even third or fourth) language do so extremely fluently, and often with a higher degree of proficiency overall than many native English speakers. Sometimes, such people, despite their general proficiency, make occasional errors in grammar or syntax, or often just in relation to collocations (the latter especially, and particularly in informal contexts). Where such errors are minor enough not to have any real impact on the clarity or eloquence of expression, then they will be disregarded for the purposes of the "clarity of expression" criterion.

Ashcroft Burnham

Where reason fails, all hope is lost.
User avatar
Ashcroft Burnham
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1093
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2006 3:21 pm

Progress report

Post by Ashcroft Burnham »

[b:35x75qje][u:35x75qje]Progress report[/b:35x75qje][/u:35x75qje]

I have now finished the first draft of the questionairre. I will not release it to the public until Wednesday, however, to ensure that all candidates have an equal chance at seeing it for the same length of time.

However, in the meantime, if anybody has any specific, constructive suggestions about which specific sorts of questions would be good to ask (or even any specific ideas about which particular questions or sorts of qusetions ought not be asked, if any), then please do reply to this thread.

The final version of the questionairre and qualification requirements will be released on Wednesday. Anybody who knows anybody who is likely to meet the qualification requirements, and who might be interested in becoming a judge should let her or him know before Wednesday to give that person the most amount of time to answer the questions.

Ashcroft Burnham

Where reason fails, all hope is lost.
User avatar
Chicago Kipling
Passionate Protagonist
Passionate Protagonist
Posts: 151
Joined: Sun Jul 23, 2006 2:07 pm

Post by Chicago Kipling »

My point is that all words adds up to a phrase about clarity that is apparently unclear to a number of people. We would not want any new person who is not from England or the US to misunderstand your intent. Simply requiring clear communication in English and retaining all your other requirements would share what you've just said more clearly and very likely retain your essential goals.

A good photograph is like a good hound dog, dumb, but eloquent. ~ Eugene Atget
User avatar
Ashcroft Burnham
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1093
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2006 3:21 pm

Post by Ashcroft Burnham »

[quote="Chicago Kipling":1av8qs5p]My point is that all words adds up to a phrase about clarity that is apparently unclear to a number of people. We would not want any new person who is not from England or the US to misunderstand your intent. Simply requiring clear communication in English and retaining all your other requirements would share what you've just said more clearly and very likely retain your essential goals.[/quote:1av8qs5p]

Hmm, how about splitting it into two requirements:

(1) fluency in the English language; and
(2) an especially high degree of linguistic proficiency?

Ashcroft Burnham

Where reason fails, all hope is lost.
User avatar
Fernando Book
Forum Admin
Forum Admin
Posts: 92
Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2006 2:39 pm

Post by Fernando Book »

I'm sorry, but I can't see how this is going to work.

First: Are you going to exam our avatars or our RL persons? Will the candidates have to disclose their RL?
Second: Is this an exam or an application form? Are the candidates going to solve a case in a way you like?
Third: I know that your are asking for ideas on this point but, how are you going to check such things as
[quote:1ezrj25n]* the ability to manage time effectively so as to discharge judicial duties within a reasonable period;
* the ability to realise what orders of the court (both procedurally and substantively) will and will not work to achieve their desired ends; [/quote:1ezrj25n]?
Fourth: Are these qualification requirements similar to those required to you by the SC?
Five: I know you have the power to write these requirements, but do you feel you have the authority to exam the candidates against requirements yourself hadn't to pass?
Six: Isn't it a waste of time, since any candidate who looks for an equal treatment will wait until the SC exams him (as the RA approved in the last meeting it will occur in a couple of weeks if there's no candidates before)?

User avatar
Ashcroft Burnham
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1093
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2006 3:21 pm

Post by Ashcroft Burnham »

[quote="Fernando Book":1ffcfeg6]I'm sorry, but I can't see how this is going to work.

First: Are you going to exam our avatars or our RL persons? Will the candidates have to disclose their RL?[/quote:1ffcfeg6]

Candidates will not be required to disclose their real-life identity to anyone. I will not even know the avatar names: I am asking the Scientific Council to anonomise the applications by replacing the names of the candidates with a candidate number, and then matching them up with the marks that I award.

[quote:1ffcfeg6]Second: Is this an exam or an application form? Are the candidates going to solve a case in a way you like?[/quote:1ffcfeg6]

It is a questionairre that tests candidates' abilities against the skills set out above.

[quote:1ffcfeg6]Third: I know that your are asking for ideas on this point but, how are you going to check such things as
[i:1ffcfeg6]* the ability to manage time effectively so as to discharge judicial duties within a reasonable period;
* the ability to realise what orders of the court (both procedurally and substantively) will and will not work to achieve their desired ends; [/i:1ffcfeg6]?[/quote:1ffcfeg6]

Some of the things are easier to check than others. For the first, just plain asking people how they will manage their time is probably the best that we can do. For the second, I can present a scenario, ask candidates to draft a court order based on that scenario, and see whether that order is workable.

[quote:1ffcfeg6]Fourth: Are these qualification requirements similar to those required to you by the SC?[/quote:1ffcfeg6]

The Scientific Council never published its qualification requirements, so I do not know what the Scientific Council required of me. But what does that have to do with what requirements that I ought set for future judges?

[quote:1ffcfeg6]Five: I know you have the power to write these requirements, but do you feel you have the authority to exam the candidates against requirements yourself hadn't to pass?[/quote:1ffcfeg6]

The whole point of the system of judicial appointments that we now have, that was debated and deliberated so intensively over so many weeks, was that the existing judges would qualify future judges in order to ensure that they are sufficiently skilled. That was the system that the Representative Assembly voted for when it passed the Judiciary Act: a system that required all judicial candidates to be qualified against published requirements set by existing judges. Upon what possible basis could it possibly be contended that the currently serving judge does not have the authority to impliment that system in those circumstnaces?

As to the requiments that I had to pass, as I have written above, since the Scientific Council did not publish its requirements, I do not know what they were, or how they tested for them. I imagine that part of its decision involved examining the design of the judiciary that I had spent so long creating to see whether that was consistent with the person who had designed it being suitable for judicial office. That, of course, is not a route that will ever be available to anyone else, so another system must be instituted.

[quote:1ffcfeg6]Six: Isn't it a waste of time, since any candidate who looks for an equal treatment will wait until the SC exams him (as the RA approved in the last meeting it will occur in a couple of weeks if there's no candidates before)?[/quote:1ffcfeg6]

Since I have now set a clear timetable for judicial appointments, I do not expect, given what was said in the last meeting, any constitutional changes to be made. That being the case, there is no realistic prospect of the Scientific Council again having the power to qualify judges for the foreseeable future.

Ashcroft Burnham

Where reason fails, all hope is lost.
User avatar
Fernando Book
Forum Admin
Forum Admin
Posts: 92
Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2006 2:39 pm

Post by Fernando Book »

Since we haven't the transcript of the meeting, I'm only relying in my memory, but I think that the RA approved the 3 first points of the Resolution re Judiciary.

[quote:3m3qy712]
1) The SC should qualify and RA should appoint at least three (two additional) judges.

2) There should be at least three Judges to constitute the Board of the Judiciary; once fully constituted the Board should elect one of their number to serve as Chief Judge.

3) The fully-constituted Board (of at least three members) should propose the adoption of rules (procedures, ethics, judicial qualifications, etc.) subject to a period of public comment, and which may be rejected or amended by the RA prior to final adoption. [/quote:3m3qy712]

The enforcement of the resolution, as I understood the debate, doesn't depend on having a timetable, but on effectively having two more judges in a couple of weeks. I. e., if we have no more judges under your system, the qualification process falls back to the Scientific Council.

Post Reply

Return to “Judiciary Discussion”