{"title":"司法公正和道德标准:司法行为法庭对法官约翰·霍普总统的决定","authors":"C. Swanepoel","doi":"10.18820/24150517/jjs46.i2.6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This case note on the Judicial Conduct Tribunal’s (hereinafter, “the tribunal”) decision regarding Judge President John Hlophe (hereinafter, “Hlophe” for the sake of brevity) in April 2021 is prompted not only by the increasing attacks on the South African judiciary, but also by the moral force which underlies the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary as constitutional guarantees.","PeriodicalId":292409,"journal":{"name":"Journal for Juridical Science","volume":"30 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Judicial probity and ethical standards: The Judicial Conduct Tribunal’s decision on Judge President John Hlope\",\"authors\":\"C. Swanepoel\",\"doi\":\"10.18820/24150517/jjs46.i2.6\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This case note on the Judicial Conduct Tribunal’s (hereinafter, “the tribunal”) decision regarding Judge President John Hlophe (hereinafter, “Hlophe” for the sake of brevity) in April 2021 is prompted not only by the increasing attacks on the South African judiciary, but also by the moral force which underlies the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary as constitutional guarantees.\",\"PeriodicalId\":292409,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal for Juridical Science\",\"volume\":\"30 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-12-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal for Juridical Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.18820/24150517/jjs46.i2.6\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal for Juridical Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18820/24150517/jjs46.i2.6","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Judicial probity and ethical standards: The Judicial Conduct Tribunal’s decision on Judge President John Hlope
This case note on the Judicial Conduct Tribunal’s (hereinafter, “the tribunal”) decision regarding Judge President John Hlophe (hereinafter, “Hlophe” for the sake of brevity) in April 2021 is prompted not only by the increasing attacks on the South African judiciary, but also by the moral force which underlies the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary as constitutional guarantees.