Are Political "Attacks" on the Judiciary Ever Justifiable? The Relationship Between Unfair Criticism and Public Accountability.

The article critically examines the phenomenon of unfair criticism of the judiciary by politicians, focusing on Australia and the United Kingdom, and challenges the common view that such criticism is solely a threat to judicial independence and the rule of law. It defines unfair criticism as remarks that are neither fully relevant nor wholly irrelevant to the judiciary's constitutional role and are expressed in a manner that is neither entirely respectful nor completely contemptuous. The article argues that unfair criticism can serve as a valuable form of public accountability by addressing diffuse societal effects and underlying principles of judicial decision-making that are not easily scrutinized through appeals or legislative processes. While acknowledging the constitutional risks unfair criticism poses—particularly the potential politicization of the judiciary—the article contends that its justifiability is context-specific and that, in stable constitutional systems like those of Australia and the UK, such criticism can be both tolerable and sometimes necessary within a broader accountability framework.