Something certainly must be done about the quality of judges in Australia. We are badly served, particularly with some of the weak sentences handed down by bewigged twits who have just told a defendant how serious his or her crime was. And, there seems to be no consistency. In SA, male teacher was recently sentenced to 6 years jail for a sexual relationship with a female student. In the same state, a female teacher having a sexual relationship with a male student received a suspended 12-month sentence. The judge rabbited on about how she was ruined, had lost respect and her job. How about the male teacher? He suffered that and 6 years jail as well!

There is nothing sure about justice in Australia while we have the current system of putting judges on the bench.

Your very positive comments on Kirby highlight some of the problems in making appointments and monitoring judges. To me, Kirby is a left-wing politician sheltering under a judge's wig; he should have done the decent thing, resigned and stood for Parliament, years ago. A good, transparent process would have to focus first on the professional capacity of the candidates, as regards their ability to conduct complex cases and apply the law in a consistent and defensible manner. Yes, judges are human and their impartiality can never be absolute; but that doesn't rule out a high level of probity and consistency.

The US hearings appear to focus excessively on matters which may not affect the professional merits of the candidate. This is perhaps because, Judge Kirby notwithstanding, judges have a much greater role in making, rather than merely applying and interpreting, law in the US system than in Australia. There must be an intermediate selection process more suitable here.

There also needs to be better refined processes for monitoring judges and disciplining them if required. The independence of judges is a safeguard for society, but there needs to be a balance where demonstrably incompetent judges can be dealt with.

The problem with confirmation hearings is simple: they turn appointments into political processes.

High Court judges are already subject to scrutiny by politicians before appointment. With no lack of character assasination attempts to boot.

If performance is the real concern, that can be addressed through a more public reporting process. The performances of judges and courts are measured. The concern is that if made public, the *numbers* would take precedence over all other factors - as they have done in every other sphere of performance 'management'.

Public Scrutiny of Appointments always sounds like such a good idea, but they're never objective. Too much is at stake for those who seek to advance their own perceived power through 'having their say' in the matter.

It is curious that the people who most loudly clamour for changes to sentencing nad judicial appointments are often the furthest from the day-to-day machinery of the courts. Our judges are not appointed to hand out tough sentences, as many are in the USA. They are expected to weight up a very large number of factors and arrive at a reasonable sentence, in light of everything before them.

If the people want harsher sentences, they ought to annoy the politicians to have the sentencing regimes changed accordingly.

Judicial appointments are not simple 'here you go' matters. Candidates are approached based upon their reputation amongst their peers, thier professional histories, and a close examination of their character and conduct. No everyone who is approached accepts, for a variety of reasons. Judges work hard over long hours. Most of the work of higher court judges happens outside of the courtroom.

Like teachers, the people who face them everyday have their own opinions as to their merits and quality. Unlike teachers, most people come away dissatisfied for various reasons. At least half because the outcome was not to their liking. It is the judges job to adjudicate, according to law.

It is not a popularity contest. Public confirmation hearings are.

Perhaps the populace would be more content if they saw justice was being done rather than injustice as many can swear to.
Sentences are often too light and maybe it is time for a referendum on the death sentence.
Judges are removed from everyday living by their education,their training and their very lifestyle.
Keeping prisons empty appears to be their main ambition rather that fair sentencing.
There should be a list of crimes with an appropriate sentence attached and the more terrible the crime, the higher the sentence with no parole.All sentences to be served in full.

Judges are way too far from ordinary Australia so give incredibly stupid, at times, findings.
They rort the system with their overseas juants err sorry -conferences.
They and especially many magistrates appear to be anti-police and give completely innapropriate bails to criminals.
Many seem to think that they and only they have any common sense.
The courts are full yet these 'strutters' dress up in their 'poofy' finery and have a day at church with a small parade before and after so the plebs can gaze at their august selves apparently.
Then when there is a change of government the dominant political party selects judges who are sympathetic to that party's views. And we are told that these pompous er sorry, learned people are not biassed. Ah yes and john howard is honest and truthful.
I do not think much of judges yet there must be one or two decent members one would think - then again? numbat

A judge is a human being, not perfect, and open to error.

The system based on preceedents is flawed, and open to interpretation.

Give them a break, they have worked hard to be as learned as they are and like everyone, you cant be perfect.

looking at the past history of a person to assess thier character/credibility/ability to perform the role is flawed.