{"id":83,"date":"2020-10-06T16:04:17","date_gmt":"2020-10-06T05:34:17","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/sites.flinders.edu.au\/judicialresearch\/?page_id=83"},"modified":"2021-02-16T10:34:30","modified_gmt":"2021-02-16T00:04:30","slug":"national-court-observation-study","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/sites.flinders.edu.au\/judicialresearchproject\/national-court-observation-study\/","title":{"rendered":"National Court Observation Study"},"content":{"rendered":"

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_empty_space][vc_column_text]<\/p>\n

National Court Observation Study<\/strong><\/h1>\n
\n
\n

The National Court Observation Study investigated\u00a0 aspects of judicial work that magistrates themselves identified as important, as well as issues which the researchers identified as significant.<\/p>\n

Based on\u00a0consultations<\/a>, preliminary observations, the\u00a0survey<\/a>\u00a0results, and literature review, the general criminal list was identified as the most appropriate aspect of magistrates\u2019 everyday work to study in detail. It includes pre-trial decisions such as bail, non-trial processes such as guilty pleas as well as sentencing.\u00a0 It is a central feature of the work in first-instance courts throughout the common law world, and is part of the work of nearly all lower court judicial officers at some point in their careers.<\/p>\n

Focusing on magistrates conducting the general criminal list entailed consideration of the nature and number of decisions a magistrate must make, the time available to decide, the sources of information used and the interaction with other participants.<\/p>\n

The demands of the criminal list, as detailed in this research, exemplify many of the features which characterise lower court processes, such as the large number of cases and associated time pressures.<\/p>\n

This research also enabled investigation of the interactive aspects of judicial work in court.\u00a0 A courtroom is a social situation as well as a legal setting, and a workplace, with face-to-face interaction.\u00a0 This is especially important in relation to the increased emphasis on judicial interaction, whether with unrepresented litigants, or in relation to newer approaches to judging such as therapeutic jurisprudence.<\/p>\n

For more detail on the research strategy and data collection process,\u00a0see below.<\/a><\/p>\n

Publications relating to this phase of the Project include:<\/strong><\/p>\n

Roach Anleu, Sharyn and Kathy Mack, Judging and Emotion<\/em> (2021) Routledge.<\/p>\n

Roach Anleu, Sharyn and Kathy Mack (2019) \u2018Communicating Justice: Alternative Judicial Approaches\u2019 in Pat Carlen and Leandro Ayres Franca \u00a0(eds) Justice Alternatives<\/em>, Routledge.<\/p>\n

Roach Anleu, Sharyn and Kathy Mack (2019) \u2018Law and Sociology\u2019 in Naomi Creutzfeldt, Marc Mason and Kirsten McConnachie (eds) Routledge Handbook on Socio-Legal Theory and Method<\/em>, Abingdon and New York: Routledge.<\/p>\n

Roach Anleu, Sharyn and Kathy Mack (2018) \u2018Judicial Humour and Inter-Professional Relations in the Courtroom\u2019 in Sharyn Roach Anleu and Jessica Milner (eds) Judges, Judging and Humour<\/em>, Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.<\/p>\n

Roach Anleu, Sharyn and Kathy Mack (2017) Performing Judicial Authority in the Lower Courts<\/em>, London: Palgrave.<\/p>\n

Roach Anleu, Sharyn, Stina Bergman Blix, Kathy Mack and \u00c5sa Wettergren (2016) \u2018Observing Judicial Work and Emotions: Using Two Researchers\u2019, Qualitative Research<\/em> 16(4): 375-391.<\/p>\n

Roach Anleu, Sharyn, Stina Bergman Blix and Kathy Mack (2015) ‘Researching emotion in courts and the judiciary: A tale of two projects’ 7(2)\u00a0Emotion Review\u00a0<\/em>145-150.<\/em><\/p>\n

Roach Anleu, Sharyn, Kathy Mack and Jordan Tutton (2014) ‘Judicial humour in the Australian courtroom’ 38(2)\u00a0Melbourne University Law Review<\/em>\u00a0 621-665. Available from:\u00a0http:\/\/www.law.unimelb.edu.au\/5D8DB6B0-BB25-11E4-AD480050568D27D4<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Roach Anleu, Sharyn and Kathy Mack (2013) ‘Performing Authority:\u00a0 Communicating Judicial Decisions in Lower Criminal Courts’,\u00a0Journal of Sociology\u00a0<\/em>1-18.<\/p>\n

Mack, Kathy and Sharyn Roach Anleu (2011) ‘Opportunities for New Approaches to Judging in a Conventional Context:\u00a0 Attitudes, Skills and Practices’ 37 (1)\u00a0Monash University Law Review\u00a0<\/em>187-215. Available from:\u00a0http:\/\/www.austlii.edu.au\/au\/journals\/MonashULawRw\/2011\/11.html<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Mack, Kathy and Sharyn Roach Anleu (2010) ‘Performing Impartiality’: Judicial Demeanour and Legitimacy ‘ 35(1)\u00a0Law & Social Inquiry<\/em>\u00a0137-173.<\/p>\n

Mack, Kathy and Sharyn Roach Anleu (2007) ‘”Getting through the list”: Judgecraft and legitimacy in the lower courts’ 16\u00a0Social and Legal Studies<\/em>\u00a0341-61.<\/p>\n

<\/a><\/a>Undertaking\u00a0 the study<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

The study involved observing 27 different magistrates conducting a general criminal list in 30 different court sessions in 20 different locations, including all capital cities, five suburban and four regional locations between August 2004 and July 2005.\u00a0 This represents more than six percent of all Australian magistrates.\u00a0 The magistrates observed include men and women magistrates covering a range of ages and experience as magistrates.\u00a0 As a group the magistrates observed closely match the gender, age, and years as a magistrate of the magistracy as a whole, though they are not a randomly selected representative sample of the whole population of Australian magistrates.<\/p>\n

Most observations covered an entire day, observing one magistrate in one court from beginning to end.\u00a0 On some occasions one or more magistrates or courts might be observed in the course of a day.\u00a0 The total number of matters observed across all sessions was 1,287. A \u2018matter\u2019, for our purposes, was when each defendant\u2019s case was called, whether the defendant actually appeared or not.<\/p>\n

Two researchers conducted the actual observations. With few exceptions, these were Kathy Mack and Sharyn Roach Anleu together; one was always an observer.\u00a0 In a busy criminal court where many discrete events occur simultaneously, it is impossible for a single person to observe and record everything.\u00a0 As observation is a very personal function, having at least two observers enhances objectivity and consistency of perception and recording.<\/p>\n

To facilitate note taking, we developed two standardised forms:<\/p>\n