‘PTSD, psychological distress’ mark Australian judiciary, study finds

A third of Australian judges should be tested for PTSD, according to a new study that also found a significant amount of the judiciary turn to alcohol as a way to cope with the stress of the job.

A first of its kind study into the psychological distress of the Australian judiciary has discovered a third of judges should be tested for PTSD.

A third of Australian judges should be tested for PTSD, a study into the psychological distress of the ­judiciary has suggested, and more than a third turn to ­alcohol as a way to cope with the stress of the job.

The study, commissioned by the NSW Judicial Commission but spanning all Australian judges, ­revealed judicial officers ­experience much higher levels of psychological distress than the general population.

“Typically, public debate about judicial officers’ work does not receive attention until there is a perceived crisis: complaints about judicial performance, controversy surrounding sentencing decisions and, in extreme cases, judicial ­suicides,” the researchers wrote in their report.

“When such incidents occur, there is a tendency to focus on the individual, rather than broader institutional and workplace issues.”

The preliminary study, which involved surveying more than 600 judges across Australian, is the first portion of a series of research ­examining judicial wellbeing.

It found female judges have higher levels of stress than their male counterparts. Similarly, magistrates in local courts experience greater stress than those in higher jurisdictions.

The researchers used the common K-10 scale to measure the psychological distress of those surveyed. The judge was required to address 10 questions about how they were feeling over the past four weeks, and give answers on a scale of one to five.

A score below 15 indicates low psychological distress, whereas scores above 30 translate to very high psychological stress.

“Far fewer respondents (56 per cent) scored below 15 compared to the general population. The ­remaining 38.4 per cent fell ­between moderate and high psychological distress,” the researchers found. “These results indicate that judicial officers ­experience higher levels of non-specific psychological distress than the general population.”

They said the “alarmingly high” scores of many respondents was cause for concern. “While these ­elevated scores do not amount to a diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), they do indicate that a formal assessment should be conducted,” the study says.

The survey asked respondents to rank the top five sources of work stress. They most commonly chose: workload, the pace of work, self-represented litigants, formulating reasons and writing judgments, and the availability and adequacy of rehabilitation paths for offenders.

It also asked the judges to nominate measures for coping with stress, with more than a third saying “alcohol consumption” helped to minimise the mental load.

“Respondents reported several coping strategies they use to help manage stress. Two of the top three involved support from others, whether family and friends (85 per cent) or judicial colleagues (77 per cent),” the study says. “In addition, exercise was nominated as a key strategy for 80 per cent of respondents. ­Almost one-quarter (24 per cent) identified meditation and 35 per cent selected alcohol consumption as coping mechanisms.”

The researchers said the study indicates judicial wellbeing should be “on the agenda” in a way it was not 30 years ago when former High Court judge Michael Kirby published a paper on ­judicial stress that was “greeted with horror” in some quarters.

They said their research ­delivered findings that “should not be ignored”.

“These results confirm what 30 years of studies have consistently found: judicial work entails a particular set of stressors, some of which may be met and countered by the inherent satisfactions of the role and do not necessarily translate into harm,” the study says. “But we ignore high rates of stress at our peril, both for the ­destructive consequences stress may have for the individual, and for the social consequences it may have for the administration of justice.”