Professor Sharyn Roach Anleu6, Professor Richard Kemp2, Associate Professor Carly Schrever3, Associate Professor Kevin O'Sullivan2, Professor Kylie Burns4, Adjunct Associate Professor Terese Henning5, Professor Jill Hunter7, Professor Natalie Skead3, Professor Prue Vines7, Emeritus Professor Kate Warner5, Dr Nina Hudson1,8,9
1Tasmania Law Reform Institute, Hobart, Australia, 2School of Psychology, University of New South Wales, Australia, 3Law School, University of Western Australia, Australia, 4Law School, Griffiths University, Australia, 5Law School, University of Tasmania, Australia, 6Judicial Research Project, Flinders University, Australia, 7Law School, University of New South Wales, Australia, 8Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, Australia, 9Independent Research Consultant, Australia
Biography:
Sharyn Roach Anleu is Matthew Flinders Distinguished Professor and Dean of Research, College of Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences at Flinders University. She is a Fellow of the Academy of the Social Sciences in Australia. In 2023, she received the Law and Society Association International Prize and the Podgórecki Prize for outstanding achievements in socio-legal research (ISA Research Committee on the Sociology of Law). With Kathy Mack, she leads the Judicial Research Project at Flinders University. Their latest book is Judging and Emotion: A Socio-Legal Analysis (Routledge, 2021). Sharyn co-edited Judges, Judging and Humour (Palgrave 2018) with Jessica Milner Davis.
Abstract:
Judicial work is saturated with emotion, especially in court, and especially in the lower courts. Judicial officers experience heavy caseloads and report feeling emotionally overloaded, underappreciated and frustrated in their everyday work. Emotional overload arises from the emotional content of cases, interacting with parties and witnesses, limited opportunities to debrief and isolation. They also report feelings of job satisfaction, enjoyment of the intrinsic dimensions of judicial work and pride in their performance. They indicate strategies for managing their own emotions and those of other participants in the interactional context of courtroom work. Drawing on findings from a new national survey (the Judicial Wellbeing Survey) and interviews, this presentation examines the multiple layers of judicial emotion and emotion work. Some judicial officers use emotion words to describe their feelings of frustration, resentment and contentedness and others use less specific language to convey emotion in their work, and an overall emotional atmosphere or climate. These statements indicate a conception of the judicial role, and good judging, and suggest the multiple ways judicial officers’ everyday experiences and perceptions depart from this image. They also suggest a layering or cascading of emotion arising from different dimensions of judicial work, the judicial hierarchy/leadership and court organisation.