This paper explores whether absolute immunity for judges should be abolished or not.
Can we sue judges? Should absolute immunity for judges be abolished? Is there a need to clarify what constitutes a judicial act for the purpose of judicial immunity in construction cases? Is there is a need to distinguish between immunity from suit from actions in negligence, and immunity from suit from actions in corruption?
It is vital that judges in construction cases to be able to make judicial decision independently, impartially and free of fear. Judges should be allowed judicial immunity provided they do not intentionally preventing opportunity to appeal. What constitutes a judicial act for purposes of judicial immunity has to be clear. The analysis from case law shows that it is most likely that immunity will be largely curtailed. It may be considered just and fair for immunity from suit to remain a significant legal and moral obligation for judges in view of human rights and right to a fair trial, although we can see there is evidence of a change in the concept of immunity. It is necessary for the courts to modernise their approach to comply with Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 10 of United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Read the next page in this section