Australian Magistrates, Therapeutic Jurisprudence and Social Change
Therapeutic jurisprudence (TJ) is an orientation to decision-making that is attracting interest amongst some judicial officers and courts. A TJ approach emphasises the quality of the interaction between judicial officers and the individuals who appear before them, which is enhanced by direct engagement, empathy and communication. Drawing on a national survey of Australian magistrates, this paper shows that many magistrates are concerned to make a difference to the operation of the courts and those who use them. Magistrates identify many of the qualities and values associated with a TJ approach as important aspects of their work or as the characteristics of a good magistrate, regardless of whether they explicitly or consciously adopt a TJ orientation. There is also some evidence that the capacity to interact positively with citizens is a source of job satisfaction for some magistrates. However, the limited capacity in their current position to contribute to change in the court system is a source of dissatisfaction for many magistrates. Therapeutic jurisprudence (TJ) is an orientation to decision-making that is attracting interest amongst judicial officers, especially those in the lower courts, both in Australia and overseas. A TJ approach focuses on the quality of the interaction between judicial officers and the individuals who appear before them, with an emphasis on direct engagement, empathy and communication. The core idea is that legal processes have the potential for positive impact on the physical and psychological well being of participants, perhaps ultimately contributing to progressive social change. This paper examines the TJ implications in individual magistrates‟ orientation to their work in two ways. First, drawing on a national survey of Australian
Towards Leadership: The Emergence Of Contemporary Court Administration In Australia
Australian court administration as we know it today emerged in the mid-1980s in response to a range of factors. This paper draws on the wisdom of pioneering court and judicial administrators to explain how the past has shaped contemporary court practices, and to explore the challenges for modern leaders in court administration. The paper briefly sets out the recent history of court administration, including an examination of practices and roles priorto the beginning of reforms in the 1980s. The paper then chronicles the remarkable role that court administrators haveplayed in responding to the demands of change, and their reinvention as educated and respected managementprofessionals. Discussion then turns to current court administration and the demands it places on its practitioners in areas including performance measurement, client centered services, financial management, relationships with the judiciary, external relationships and innovation. The subjects covered in this section have been confined to those areas where the author believes the leadership implications are greatest. The paper then looks forward, examining the implications of emerging trends. Finally, the paper concludes that while the technical management skills demanded of the court administrator are important and should in no way be diminished, reflection on the past, present and emerging future shows that it is an aptitude for the intangible art of leadership that sets apart those who succeed in this role. While much of this paper is written with the senior court administrator or chief executive in mind, many of its observations and conclusions can be applied to the profession of court administration more generally.
The Area of Freedom, Security and Justice ten years on: Successes and future challenges under the Stockholm Programme. CEPS Paperbacks. June 2010
This book celebrates the tenth anniversary of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (AFSJ) by bringing together the views of key practitioners and policy-makers who have played an outstanding role in thinking about and shaping EU policies on freedom, security and justice. 
 
Ten years ago, the member states transferred competences to the EU for law and policy-making in the fields of immigration, asylum and border controls, and began the transfer process for criminal justice and policing. This decade of European cooperation on AFSJ policies has experienced very dynamic convergence, the enactment of a large body of European law and the setting-up of numerous EU agencies working in these domains. Such dynamism in policy-making has not been without challenges and vulnerabilities, however. As this collective volume shows, the main dilemmas that lie ahead relate to an effective (while more plural) institutional framework under the Treaty of Lisbon, stronger judicial scrutiny through a greater role for national courts and the Court of Justice in Luxembourg, better mechanisms for evaluating and monitoring the implementation of EU AFSJ law and a more solid fundamental rights strategy. The contributions in this volume address the progress achieved so far in these policy areas, identify the challenges for future European cooperation in the AFSJ and put forward possible paths for making more progress in the next generation of the EU’s AFSJ.