The obligation of judicial officers to provide reasons for their decisions has been described by Sir Anthony Mason, a former Chief Justice of the High Court, as an element of the broader ‘culture of justification’ that exists in modern democracies.[1] While there is an increasing international scholarly literature examining the duty to give reasons for judicial decisions,[2] the Australian scholarly literature is far less developed.[3]
Please access a pdf of the full article using the link to the left.
(2017) 40(3) UNSWLJ 923: https://doi.org/10.53637/CFWR4202
- Sir Anthony Mason, ‘Reply to David Dyzenhaus’ in Cheryl Saunders and Katherine Le Roy (eds), The
Rule of Law (Federation Press, 2003) 52, 54. - See, eg, B V Harris, ‘The Continuing Struggle with the Nuanced Obligation on Judges to Provide
Reasons for Their Decisions’ (2016) 132 Law Quarterly Review 216; Mathilde Cohen, ‘When Judges Have Reasons Not to Give Reasons: A Comparative Law Approach’ (2015) 72 Washington and Lee Law Review 483; Hamish Stewart, ‘The Trial Judge’s Duty to Give Reasons for Judgment in Criminal Cases’ (2009) 14 Canadian Criminal Law Review 19; Mary Liston, ‘”Alert, Alive and Sensitive”: Baker, the Duty to Give Reasons, and the Ethos of Justification in Canadian Public Law’ in David Dy]enhaus (ed), The Unity of Public Law (Hart Publishing, 2004) 113; David McGowan, ‘Judicial Writing and the Ethics of the Judicial Office’ (2000) 14 The Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics 509; H L Ho, ‘The Judicial Duty to Give Reasons’ (2000) 20 Legal Studies 42; Frederick Schauer, ‘Giving Reasons’ (1995) 47 Stanford Law Review 633; Michael Taggart, ‘Should Canadian Judges Be Legally Required to Give Reasoned Decisions in Civil Cases?’ (1983) 33 University of Toronto Law Journal 1; Michael Akehurst, ‘Statements of Reasons for Judicial and Administrative Decisions’ (1970) 33 The Modern Law Review 154. - A notable and important exception is Jason Bosland and Jonathan Gill, ‘The Principle of Open Justice
and the Judicial Duty to Give Public Reasons’ (2014) 38 Melbourne University Law Review 482.