It seems that the judiciary is immune from accountability or appraisal - and this should not be the case, argues Mark Easton

Earlier this month the Lord Chancellor spelled out the values that underpin the government's constitutional reforms.

One of the driving forces, he said, was a desire 'to increase trust and accountability in public bodies'.

Seemingly, he does not include the judiciary among those public bodies.

Judges are a law unto themselves, protected from the professional scrutiny that is now an accepted part of public life.

Even the lightest touch of appraisal has already been ruled out for the bench, despite calls for change from high places.

In 2001, Lord Justice Auld's report on the criminal courts said judicial appraisal 'would be of considerable benefit, not only in enabling judges to improve the way in which they do their job, but also to bolster public confidence in their professionalism and competence'.

His recommendation was tossed into the waste-paper basket, where it joined a similar proposal from Lord Runciman.

Lord Mackay had rejected the 1993 Royal Commission's argument suggesting that, far from bolstering our faith in the judiciary, appraisal would 'undermine our confidence that judges will determine each case fairly'.

Accountability is not the enemy of confidence, it is the soul mate.

I don't believe the judiciary is in crisis, but having spent 18 months analysing 19,000 Appeal Court transcripts, I know the names of a few dozen judges whose performance is troubling.

While most Circuit Judges have been successfully appealed three times or less, a minority has seen its errors corrected 30 times or more.

One judge in the north west has had his sentences reduced more than 50 times in the past seven years.

Another has been successfully appealed at least 38 times - which is the fourth highest figure for any judge in England.

And a judge in the midlands has seen eight of his sentences increased following intervention by the Attorney-General.

On their own, such statistics are not necessarily indicative of judicial incompetence - there will often be entirely innocent reasons lying behind a spate of appealed judgments - but they do at least highlight potential areas of concern in the absence of a more formalised system of assessment.

The Lord Chancellor does not monitor appeal cases.

Despite his responsibility to maintain judicial standards he does not check to see whether judges are performing adequately.

His argument is that they are accountable 'through the appeal system' and he has 'no role in considering any judicial decision'.

The problem is that while the Court of Appeal corrects individual mistakes, it cannot stand back to see the bigger picture.

An arrangement designed to protect judicial independence inadvertently protects incompetence.

Barristers know the names of the bad judges but they are unlikely to tell.

Criticising the bench is hardly a good career move.

If the Appeal Court has a particular concern about a judge's performance, it may alert the presiding judge on that circuit who can offer 'advice or guidance'.

Surely a transparent system of professional scrutiny is infinitely better than the gossip and whispers approach we have at the moment.

The independence of the judiciary must be safeguarded, but that is not inconsistent with accountability.

After all, magistrates and District Judges are appraised and have, as Lord Justice Auld pointed out, 'equally powerful claims to judicial independence'.

Scrutiny would increase consistency in sentencing and identify those judges who need extra training.

Where the performance of judges regularly falls below the standards we expect, they should be disciplined or removed.

The sky won't fall in and justice will be the winner.

There is a golden opportunity to introduce a system of professional accountability with the creation of a judicial appointments commission.

We are promised it will employ judges free from external interference.

Well, if it can hire them without undermining judicial independence, why shouldn't it be able to fire them too?

Mark Easton is home affairs editor of Channel Four News.

His documentary, 'Dispatches: Judges In The Dock', was broadcast on 18 December on Channel Four