Merit should be principal criterion for judicial appointment
|
 |
|
Post a Comment
|
|
|
|
|
CONTRIBUTORS:
|
|
|
JOURNAL:
|
|
|
YEAR:
|
2004
|
|
PUB TYPE:
|
Journal Article
|
|
SUBJECT(S):
|
law, legal profession
|
|
DISCIPLINE:
|
Law
|
|
HTTP:
|
|
|
LANGUAGE:
|
English
|
|
PUB ID:
|
103-410-288
(Last edited on
2004/12/01 15:11:24 US/Mountain)
|
|
SPONSOR(S):
|
|
|
ABSTRACT:
Whilst there is some merit in the suggestion periodically made (for instance by Catriona MacLennan, “Cast the net wider for effective judges”, New Zealand Herald, 10 May 2004) that judges should be more representative of the society they serve, I would maintain that the principal, and indeed pre-eminent, criterion for the appointment of members of the professional judiciary should be merit. Whether a judge is seen as representative or not should have little, if any, bearing upon their selection.
|
|
|
|
STATISTICS
|
|
Click on # to view
|
|
Citations
|
|
0
|
|
References
|
|
0
|
|
Comments
|
|
0
|
|
Quality
|
|
0/0.00
|
|
Interest
|
|
0/0.00
|
|
View(er)s
|
|
1/186
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Prev |
Next |
|