Judicial accountability, strictly speaking, does not mean that the judiciary (unlike the legislature and the executive) is accountable to the public. The primary obligation of the judiciary is not to the majority of the electors, but to the law. Judges arguably must be free from the tyranny of government and from the tyranny of the majority.

While the ultimate judicial accountability is to Parliament, this does not mean that judges are subservient to Parliament. Any discussion of judicial accountability and judicial independence has its tension spots and it is prudent that one treads carefully here as it is possible that accountability claims may place judicial independence at risk.

In a sense, judicial accountability to the public means holding court in public, making rulings on a reasoned judgment which is open to scrutiny by lawyers, the public and the media, and having decisions appealed to or reviewed by superior courts.

In fulfilling these functions judges are required to conduct themselves in a manner compatible with the execution of their office. Judges unlike ordinary citizens hold an office of power, trust and respect. Public confidence is lost if the system allows a corrupt or incompetent judge or a judge who abuses power or is given to excesses to remain on the bench.

The UN Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary 1985 acknowledges a judge's right to freedom of speech, assembly and association but sets a proviso that "judges shall always conduct themselves in such a manner as to preserve the dignity of their office and the impartiality and independence of the judiciary".

In 1995, at the 6th Conference of Chief Justices of Asia and the Pacific, 20 participating chief justices and their representatives endorsed the [#1] Beijing Statement of Principles of the Independence of the Judiciary [/#]. The Beijing principles among others, require that the judiciary shall uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary by avoiding impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all their activities.

Gone are the old world sentiments that judges are trusted to do the right thing on their own or should only be accountable to their conscience. The Conference of Chief Justices show that judges themselves are on the forefront of this call for public accountability.

It is inevitable that public perceptions and press coverage of judicial behaviour are often levelled as criticisms. In Commonwealth jurisdictions and the United States, informed and reasoned criticisms of judges in open and informed debate are often upheld as protected speech.

Speech (including press freedom) as a fundamental democratic value is sacrosanct. Public comments or reasoned criticism (fair comment) of government institutions, including the judiciary is desirable and beneficial in a free society.

Unprotected speech relates to unfounded and unreasonable attacks or inaccurate and unjustified criticisms. These are scandalous and would erode public confidence and weaken the administration of justice and arguably judicial independence.

An unjust criticism requires as a first determination, that the comment or criticism is in fact "unjust".

An interrogation may include the following questions. Is the comment or criticism based in whole or in part on any factual inaccuracies or distortions of fact? Is the comment or criticism based in whole or in part on a misunderstanding of either substantive or procedural law or the workings of the judicial system? Is the comment or criticism a personal attack regarding the ethics or integrity of a sitting judge based solely on the commentator's disagreement with a particular decision or ruling?

It is a judicial tradition or ethic, that judges refrain from making a public stance on any issue. It is generally undesirable for a judge to answer criticism of his actions in the media. This is often seen as "self-serving".

More importantly, a judge's comment or response may invite reflection of his impartiality in a pending litigation or in the future. That by itself may be seen to further compromise his impartiality. Most of these concerns are usually appropriately dealt with in the codes for judges.

Whether it's a case of misconduct, misbehaviour or impropriety, the allegations would have to be dealt with. Judicial independence and confidence in the administration of justice exacts it.