Judicial Immunity In Criminal Justice

Judicial immunity, as defined by Duhaime’s Law Dictionary, is the absolute immunity from civil liability for official decisions or acts . In Robert Klingman’s article, he defined the immunity as ‘almost anything that transpires in a judicial preoceeding’ . Judicial immunity is granted to judges and court officers for tortious acts or omissions done within the scope of jurisdiction or authority . An example of judicial immunity is that a judge is not liable for a slander or liberal suit when making statements about someone during a trial, in regards to how corrupt the act was . Judicial immunity is essential as it is allows the judges to make difficult decisions without the fear of being sued, this is known as fiat Justitia ruat Caelum. Judicial immunity only covers judges from civil liability and not consequences of crime they might commit during the course of their official action. The doctrine of judicial immunity has been applied in the case of Roger v Mignault , where the judge slandered a …show more content…
It is established in the courts of medical Europe. It functions to discourage people from attacking a decision made in court by suing the judge and instead, they have to appeal their case to another court. This concept protects the judges from civil damages and functions to solidify the independence of judiciary. It is widely accepted and practiced in the English courts and the courts if the United States.
Judicial immunity has been argued that it is not adequately justified. Judges are shielded from any personal capacity liability, but they should still be subjected to official capacity liabilities so that they may be held accountable and answerable for their injurious actions. This is to ‘balance the evil’ and protect the fundamental rights of the victims . Judicial immunity relates more on the function of the judiciary and not to an individual, thus there are limitations to these