Judicial independence is vital to a healthy society. Agree or disagree and discuss with particular reference to the judiciary system in Australia. I agree with this statement. The reason why is because history is full of examples showing how judicial independence improves the overall amounts of: transparency and personal freedoms in society. This is because, an independent judiciary is providing a way of giving ordinary citizens the ability have their issues addressed. Once this takes place, it means that the rule of law can begin to function effectively, due to the fact that everyone feels that they will be treated fairly by the court system.

In those nations where the judiciary is often run by the government itself, this means that the citizens have less personal freedom. The reason why is because, the close relationship between these branches will give one more dominance over the others. Once this takes place, it means that many people will become frustrated with the political and legal process. At which point, they will become disillusioned with what is occurring. This will have an effect upon the way the government is interacting with the citizens. As, they will have less: freedom and resent the way that they are being treated. This is important, because it shows how a health judiciary can address the underlying challenges facing society. Where, they give the people a voice of having their various grievances objectively being heard. At which point, everyone will have more respect for the law, as they believe that the will be treated fairly by the court system. (Strum, 2001)

In the case of Australia, the judiciary is a standard part of the basic foundation for protecting the rights of the people. This is because the system of government is based upon a Constitutional monarchy. Under this form of administration, the overall amounts of power...

At the same time, there are different divisions between the: executive, judicial and legislative branches. This is because, of the belief that the underlying amounts of power should be divided between: these branches and the states / territories.
As far as the courts are concerned, this basic division meant that they would have greater amounts of independence in: wrestling with the underlying challenges that they are facing. This is in line with the basic Constitutional principles to: protect the rights of ordinary people and prevent one branch of the government from overreaching into another. As a result, this means that the underlying amounts of independence will mean that the courts will take a more objective approach when: listening and interpreting the law.

A good example of this can be seen with comments from the New South Wales Supreme Court justice Marilyn Warren who said, "The proceedings reveal a strange alliance. A party which has a duty to assist the court in achieving certain objectives fails to do so. A court which has a duty to achieve those objectives does not achieve them. The torpid languor of one hand washes the drowsy procrastination of the other." This is important, because it shows how the courts have an obligation to maintain some kind of balance, in addressing the underlying issues facing an individual or governmental / private-based entity. ("The Duty owed to the Court," 2006)

Further evidence of this can be seen by looking at some of the ways the court has ruled on a number of high profile case. The most notable include: Rees v Bailey Aluminum Products and Gianarelli v Wraith. Under Rees v Bailey Aluminum Products, the court was discussing how the prosecuting attorney acted improperly during the middle of a criminal trial. This…