Two tiers of judicial officers

In this article I reflect on the conception, methodology and findings of a study of judicial officers’ psychological wellbeing undertaken by a team comprised of two psychology and two law researchers. I am one of the lawyers. The article unpicks the unexpected significance of court hierarchy for those on the bench and the ethical challenges arising from judges’ revelations of their exposure to potentially lethal degradation and abuse. Law, and I as a lawyer, view the adjudication process as outcome oriented. Judges are less visibly ‘human’ than parties, lawyers and witnesses. Instead, judges present and perform the Law. This lawyer anticipated judges’ tasks of deploying legal knowledge at high levels, confronting graphic evidence and high profile unfair public criticism would be prominent triggers to invoking judicial stress. My psychology colleagues drew on psychological trauma literature that suggests that unlike first responders, judges are high-achieving professionals exercising authority in complex, highly visible, but isolating environments. The study’s findings were surprising, debunking my expectation of relatively homogeneous judicial experiences. Instead, they showed that the impact and nature of magistrates’ exposure to workplace trauma is sui generis.