Findings from the research clarify aspects of the form, nature and circumstances of appropriate judicial humour and its positive functions. Summary The use of humour by judicial officers is subject to formal and informal regulation. Inappropriate judicial humour may undermine core judicial values of impartiality and neutrality, possibly leading to a loss of public confidence and legitimacy. Appropriate judicial humour can have a valuable role in the courtroom. Data from interviews with judicial officers and court observation studies demonstrate that judicial humour is a reality in the Australian courtroom and can be used positively
Humor is a pervasive element of human communication and a fundamental ingredient of democratic life....
Justice John Paul Stevens once noted that [i]t is the confidence in the men and women who administe...
Media criticism of the courts, or perceptions of a declining \u27public confidence\u27 in the judici...
Humor is used in our everyday lives and there is no exception in a work environment. Humor is often ...
Laughter in Supreme Court oral arguments has been misunderstood, treated as either a lighthearted di...
Humorous judicial opinions are curious legal creatures. Although they account for only a small perce...
How can judges draw a line between innocent jokes and potentially harmful ones? Due to its inherent ...
The use of humour by mediators has been relatively little explored in empirical research yet it offe...
This article proffers an alternative system for handling complaints about the judiciary, tailored to...
Australian courts - and the High Court in particular - are another political institution (Chapter 2)...
Humor is a pervasive element of human communication and a fundamental ingredient of democratic life....
Justice Michael Kirby, a judge of the High Court of Australia, sets out to explain the inescapably c...
Our traditional understanding of judicial decision-making is that judges apply the law to a set of f...
There is a "policy" that judicial officers should not sue for defamation, save in exceptional circu...
Much has been written on judicial activism. Importantly, Andrew Leigh's 1999 article in the Australi...
Humor is a pervasive element of human communication and a fundamental ingredient of democratic life....
Justice John Paul Stevens once noted that [i]t is the confidence in the men and women who administe...
Media criticism of the courts, or perceptions of a declining \u27public confidence\u27 in the judici...
Humor is used in our everyday lives and there is no exception in a work environment. Humor is often ...
Laughter in Supreme Court oral arguments has been misunderstood, treated as either a lighthearted di...
Humorous judicial opinions are curious legal creatures. Although they account for only a small perce...
How can judges draw a line between innocent jokes and potentially harmful ones? Due to its inherent ...
The use of humour by mediators has been relatively little explored in empirical research yet it offe...
This article proffers an alternative system for handling complaints about the judiciary, tailored to...
Australian courts - and the High Court in particular - are another political institution (Chapter 2)...
Humor is a pervasive element of human communication and a fundamental ingredient of democratic life....
Justice Michael Kirby, a judge of the High Court of Australia, sets out to explain the inescapably c...
Our traditional understanding of judicial decision-making is that judges apply the law to a set of f...
There is a "policy" that judicial officers should not sue for defamation, save in exceptional circu...
Much has been written on judicial activism. Importantly, Andrew Leigh's 1999 article in the Australi...
Humor is a pervasive element of human communication and a fundamental ingredient of democratic life....
Justice John Paul Stevens once noted that [i]t is the confidence in the men and women who administe...
Media criticism of the courts, or perceptions of a declining \u27public confidence\u27 in the judici...