Just Satisfaction? What Drives Public and Participant Satisfaction with Courts and Tribunals - A Review of Recent Evidence

The Burden of Bearing Witness: The Impact of Testifying at War Crimes Tribunals

“…The statistical insignificance (but positively signed results) in the positive affect model suggests that the experience is complicated for those who have repeat experiences at the tribunal as it is for any witness involved in repetitious proceedings (Thibaut and Walker 1975). Perhaps witnesses who testify more frequently may see their testimony as more of an obligation or burden, so that even though the experience precipitated more positive emotions, it also elicited more negative affect (Moorhead, Sefton, and Scanlan 2007). While others have indicated that witness fatigue undermines justice, we find that there are also consequences for how witnesses look back on testifying as well (King and Meernik forthcoming;Stepakoff et al 2015a).…”

“…Nonetheless, the findings are consistent with those who find that individual efficacy and legitimacy are important for perceptions about justice and the legal system (Benesh 2006;Tyler 1990). Like the findings related to motivation, the feeling of being important because of participating may be empowering and correlate with having a positive perspective which has consequences for well-being (Moorhead, Sefton, and Scanlan 2007;Lyubomirsky, King, and Diener 2005).…”

“…Contrary to other research findings, witnesses who feel they have been treated fairly by the OTP/ Defence do not have significantly more positive feelings about testifying as has been found elsewhere (Stepakoff et al 2015a;Cody et al 2014), and yet, fair treatment does relate to how witnesses feel about justice because being treated fairly correlates with lower levels of negativity (Horn, Charters, and Vahidy 2009a). It is almost as if while the attorneys may not contribute to positive feelings about fairness and procedural justice, it is important that legal counsel treat witnesses fairly so at a minimum, they do no harm (King and Meernik forthcoming;Moorhead, Sefton, and Scanlan 2007).…”

Future Directions: Enhancing the public value of the Fair Work Commission

“…In a review of the literature about the factors driving public and participant satisfaction with courts and tribunals, Moorhead, Sefton and Scanlan, researchers from Cardiff Law School, concluded:The weight of the evidence suggests that it is participant judgments about the fairness of the process not the outcomes that participants receive which are most important in influencing the levels of their satisfaction … the suggestion that satisfaction is simply dependent upon outcome, driven solely by the self interest of each participant, and somehow an anathema to justice, is challenged by the evidence. Even losing parties may gain some satisfaction from a process which is palpably just (Moorhead et al., 2008: i–ii).…”

“…Moorhead, Sefton and Scanlan found that five process-oriented factors contributed to the perception of fairness, and hence satisfaction: the expectations of, and information provided to, participants; the quality of participation granted to participants (i.e. the extent to which, and the process through which, participants are able to tell their story in a way they view as accurate and fair); the quality of treatment and, in particular, the respect shown to the participant during their time at the tribunal; issues of convenience and comfort – including timeliness and efficiency; judgements about tribunal members and staff – whether they were perceived as helpful and empathetic (Moorhead et al., 2008: 39–40). …”