🚨 Peer Judicial Panel: A New Court Composition Aiming for Horizontal Consensus

Today Korean Social News | 2025.04.24

📌 Peer Judicial Panel, Between Ideal and Reality... Where is 'Horizontal Consensus' Headed?

💬 Recently, 'peer judicial panels' composed of three judges with similar positions and experience are becoming more widespread in courts. This system aims for horizontal consensus among judges, breaking away from vertical structures, but in reality, the presiding judge often takes on the role of the lead judge, operating essentially like a single-judge trial. In particular, the Seoul High Court Criminal Division 6, which deliberated on Democratic Party leader Lee Jae-myung's appeal for violation of the Public Official Election Act, was also such a peer judicial panel, where the presiding judge reportedly led the writing of the judgment.

Summary

• A peer judicial panel consists of three judges with similar experience and positions serving as equals.
• It aims to improve the quality of judgments through horizontal consensus, moving away from vertical hierarchies.
• Unlike the ideal, in actual operation, proceedings are still often centered around the presiding judge.

1️⃣ Definition

A peer judicial panel refers to a court composition method in which three judges with similar experience and positions conduct trials in an equal relationship. Simply put, unlike traditional courts where senior and junior judges are hierarchically structured, this system involves judges of similar years of experience who review cases and make judgments from equal positions.

Peer judicial panels aim to produce judgments that reflect diverse perspectives in a balanced way through horizontal consensus.

💡 Why is it important?

• It improves the vertical culture within the judiciary and strengthens democratic processes in trials.
• The expertise and perspectives of multiple judges can be reflected in a balanced way, improving the quality of judgments.
• It prevents the views or tendencies of a particular judge from having excessive influence.
• It can contribute to improving public trust in the judiciary.

2️⃣ Structure and Characteristics of Peer Judicial Panels

📕 Composition Method

• Peer judicial panels consist of judges with similar experience and expertise. The composition has the following characteristics:
  • First, differences in experience between judges are minimized. Typically, they consist of judges with similar careers of around 7-10 years.
  • Second, while there is a distinction between the presiding judge and associate judges, there is little difference in their substantive authority.
  • Third, all judges participate equally in case assignment and review of issues.
  • Fourth, all judges can take on the role of lead judge (responsible for writing judgments), with the ideal being a rotation system by case.
• Peer judicial panels emphasize equal exchange of opinions unlike traditional panels. The operation method is as follows:
  • First, the opinions of all judges are equally respected in the deliberation process. Even the presiding judge does not dismiss or pressure other judges' opinions.
  • Second, regular deliberation (exchange of opinions) times ensure sufficient discussion.
  • Third, the presiding judge takes on administrative roles related to trial proceedings, but the principle of one person, one vote applies to judgment content.
  • Fourth, all judges participate in reviewing the judgment, and in case of disagreement, they find consensus through discussion.

📕 Characteristics and Significance

• The main characteristics of peer judicial panels are diversity and democracy. Peer judicial panels have the following features:
  • First, diverse perspectives can be reflected. Even with similar experience, each judge may have different areas of expertise or legal views, which can be comprehensively reflected in judgments.
  • Second, discussion culture is activated. Without opinion constraints due to hierarchy, active discussion is possible, allowing deeper analysis of case issues.
  • Third, it contributes to strengthening judges' capabilities. By taking turns as lead judge, all judges can gain experience evenly and build expertise.
  • Fourth, it contributes to forming a democratic culture within the judiciary. It creates a decision-making culture based on expertise and logic rather than hierarchy.
• Peer judicial panels were introduced as part of judicial reform. The background and significance of their introduction are as follows:
  • First, they were introduced to improve the authoritarian culture within the judiciary. They aim for horizontal relationships, breaking away from traditional senior-junior hierarchies.
  • Second, they aim to improve the quality of judgments. Various perspectives can be thoroughly discussed, potentially resulting in more balanced judgments.
  • Third, they contribute to enhancing public trust in the judiciary. The objectivity of judgments can be increased as the influence of any single judge is not excessive.
  • Fourth, they contribute to strengthening judicial independence. Judges can express their opinions with conviction without being constrained by hierarchy.
  • Fifth, they reflect international trends. Many advanced countries are also adopting similar horizontal consensus systems.

Key Issues with Peer Judicial Panels

1. Gap between ideal and reality: Formally equal, but in practice often centered around the presiding judge
2. Efficiency issues: Decision-making processes may be delayed when all judges are deeply involved
3. Unclear accountability: Possibility of diffused responsibility in joint decisions
4. Difficulty in personnel allocation: Constraints in personnel management to place judges with similar experience in one panel
5. Conflict with existing culture: Friction with the vertical court culture formed over a long period

3️⃣ Current Status and Implications

✅ Current Operation Status of Peer Judicial Panels

• Peer judicial panels are expanding but face limitations in substantive operation. The current operational status is as follows:
  • Starting from the Seoul Central District Court in 2023, the adoption of peer judicial panels has expanded, with about 100 peer judicial panels operating in major courts nationwide as of 2025.
  • However, in actual operation, the presiding judge often still holds the initiative. There are reports of cases where the presiding judge's influence significantly affects not only trial proceedings but also the substantive content of judgments.
  • In particular, the role of lead judge (responsible for writing judgments) is often taken by the presiding judge, tending to maintain the traditional vertical structure in practice.
  • A representative example is the Seoul High Court Criminal Division 6, which handled Democratic Party leader Lee Jae-myung's appeal for violation of the Public Official Election Act. Although it was composed as a peer judicial panel, the presiding judge reportedly led the writing of the judgment.
  • Within the courts, there are voices preferring this operational method for reasons of work efficiency and expertise, but there is also criticism that it fails to fulfill the purpose of peer judicial panels.
• Various evaluations of peer judicial panels coexist. Evaluations are as follows:
  • Positive evaluation: In some panels, an active discussion culture has formed, and judges' participation has increased. Particularly in complex cases, there are assessments that the quality of judgments has improved as various perspectives are reflected.
  • Negative evaluation: There is criticism that they are peer judicial panels only in form, with little substantive difference from the traditional method. Especially, the phenomenon of authority being concentrated in the presiding judge due to workload continues.
  • Within the legal community, opinions are raised that for peer judicial panels to take root, fundamental changes in court culture and work methods beyond simple compositional changes are necessary.
  • In civil society, there are many evaluations that peer judicial panels can contribute to improving public trust in the judiciary when they operate substantively, but their effect is limited with formal operation.

✅ Implications and Directions for Improvement

• Institutional supplements are needed for the substantive operation of peer judicial panels. Directions for improvement are as follows:
  • First, clear operational guidelines are needed. Specific guidelines are necessary for rotating assignment of lead judges, procedures for opinion exchange, and judgment writing processes.
  • Second, workload adjustment is important. With the current excessive case burden, it is difficult for all judges to be deeply involved, so it is necessary to set an appropriate number of cases for peer judicial panels.
  • Third, evaluation system improvement is needed. A system is needed to evaluate the participation and contribution of all judges, not just the presiding judge.
  • Fourth, creating a physical environment is important. Space and time must be guaranteed for judges to frequently communicate and discuss.
  • Fifth, strengthening judicial education is necessary. Awareness improvement through education on horizontal communication and consensus culture is needed.
• Peer judicial panels are an important part of judicial reform. The significance and prospects are as follows:
  • First, they are the starting point for cultural change within the judiciary. Although there are currently limitations, they can contribute to the establishment of a horizontal discussion culture in the long term.
  • Second, they contribute to ensuring diversity and balance in judgments. Reflecting various perspectives can reduce biased judgments and achieve balanced views.
  • Third, they are an opportunity for judicial trust recovery. Substantive operation of peer judicial panels can contribute to enhancing the transparency and fairness of the judiciary.
  • Fourth, they are a development in line with international standards. They reflect the trends of countries with advanced judicial systems.
  • Fifth, continuous evaluation and improvement are needed. Continuous monitoring and institutional supplements are important to achieve substantive results beyond formal adoption.

4️⃣ Related Terminology

🔎 Collegiate Court

• A collegiate court is a panel where three or more judges deliberate and decide together.
• A collegiate court refers to a panel where 3 or more judges review and judge cases together, unlike a single judge court where one judge conducts trials alone. It typically handles important or complex cases, appeals, or final appeals.
• Traditional collegiate courts have a hierarchical structure composed of the chief judge (presiding judge), senior judge, and junior judge. The presiding judge leads the trial proceedings, and although decisions are made by majority vote when opinions differ, the presiding judge's opinion often has significant influence.
• The advantage of collegiate courts is that the quality of judgments can be enhanced by combining the expertise and experience of multiple judges. However, since the presiding judge's opinion tends to be dominant in traditional collegiate courts, peer judicial panels were introduced to overcome this limitation.

🔎 Lead Judge

• A lead judge is the judge responsible for writing the judgment for a specific case.
• A lead judge refers to the judge in a collegiate court who is mainly responsible for writing the judgment for a specific case. The judgment is an important document containing the official opinion of the court, and the lead judge thoroughly reviews case records and researches legal principles to draft the judgment.
• Traditionally, the lead judge is designated by the presiding judge and is often the junior judge in the panel. However, in peer judicial panels, ideally all judges take turns as lead judge.
• The role of the lead judge is not just limited to writing the judgment but also includes organizing the issues of the case and establishing the basis for legal judgment. Therefore, who serves as the lead judge can affect the direction or logical structure of the judgment, making it an important issue in peer judicial panels.

🔎 Judicial Independence

• Judicial independence refers to a judge's freedom to make judgments according to law and conscience without external influence.
• Judicial independence refers to a judge's freedom and authority to make independent judgments according to law and conscience without pressure or influence from outside. This is a basic premise for fair trials and an important principle guaranteed by the constitution.
• Judicial independence can be largely divided into external independence and internal independence. External independence means independence from external forces such as the government, parliament, media, and public opinion, while internal independence means independence from within the court, especially from superiors or senior judges.
• Peer judicial panels focus particularly on strengthening internal independence. The goal is to allow each judge to freely express their legal views without being constrained by hierarchy and reflect this in trials. When judicial independence is substantively guaranteed, more fair and balanced judgments can be made.

5️⃣ Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

Q: What is the difference between a peer judicial panel and a regular collegiate court?

A: The main differences between peer judicial panels and regular collegiate courts lie in the relationship between members and the operation method. Regular collegiate courts are composed of judges with different experience and ranks (e.g., chief judge and associate judges), have a hierarchical structure, and the chief judge as the presiding judge holds substantive initiative. In contrast, peer judicial panels consist of judges with similar experience, aim for horizontal relationships, and ideally all judges express opinions equally and take turns as lead judge (writing judgments). Regular collegiate courts have the advantage of utilizing the presiding judge's experience and expertise, but there may be opinion constraints due to hierarchy. Peer judicial panels have the advantages of balanced reflection of diverse perspectives and activation of discussion culture, but the decision-making process may take longer. There is no difference in legal status or authority between the two types of panels, and both issue judgments with the same legal effect.

Q: What significance do peer judicial panels have for citizens?

A: Peer judicial panels have significance for ordinary citizens in several aspects. First, more balanced judgments can be expected. With various perspectives being reflected evenly, there is a higher possibility of judgments not being excessively influenced by the bias or tendencies of a particular judge. Second, they can contribute to improving public trust in the judiciary. As the authoritarian and hierarchical court culture improves, the approachability and trustworthiness of the judiciary as perceived by citizens can be enhanced. Third, the transparency of the trial process can be strengthened. In the process where multiple judges substantively participate, there is a higher possibility that the grounds and logic for judgments will be presented more clearly. Fourth, there is a possibility that the voices of social minorities or the vulnerable will be better reflected. If opinions of judges with diverse backgrounds and perspectives are reflected, understanding of the socially vulnerable can be improved. However, the effect may vary depending on how substantively peer judicial panels are operated in reality. If they are operated only formally, the change perceived by citizens may be limited.