Mental health challenges facing Australian judges
Behind the solemnity of the bench and the authority of the gavel lies a deeply human experience. Judges and magistrates frequently confront harrowing facts, apply complex legal principles, and deliver decisions that shape lives. This responsibility comes at a cost to mental health. NSW Chief Justice Andrew Bell has recently warned that workloads in New South Wales courts are “neither personally nor institutionally sustainable,” noting that some judges have taken their own lives when the burden became intolerable. Such admissions highlight a growing judicial mental-health crisis that demands public attention.
Unsustainable caseloads and vicarious trauma
The figures are stark. In 2024‑25 the NSW Supreme Court handled over 8,650 filings, while the District Court listed more than 1,870 criminal trials. Local courts often deal with 100 matters a day and almost 400,000 criminal cases were launched in NSW local courts last year. When caseloads balloon without adequate resourcing, judges risk exhaustion and burnout.
Judges regularly preside over cases involving sexual assault and child abuse. Repeated exposure to such trauma can result in vicarious trauma. Justice Bell warns that a steady diet of serious offences can have a cumulative impact. Compounding these pressures is the rise of social media: judges who deliver controversial decisions may be targeted by online trolls, eroding the sense of safety necessary for judicial independence.
The human cost: judicial suicides and legal implications
The tragedy of judicial suicide is no longer an isolated occurrence. Coroners in Victoria linked suicides in 2017 and 2018 to overwhelming workloads and intense media scrutiny, while a Federal Circuit Court judge’s death in 2020 brought further focus on judicial wellbeing. Under Australia’s occupational health and safety laws, employers — including governments that fund courts — must ensure a working environment free from risks to health. Courts have the same duty to protect their employees’ mental health as any other workplace.
Why reform and compassion are essential
Professional support structures exist and collegiality among judges is strong. Yet supportive culture alone cannot fix systemic problems. Adequate resourcing — more judges, better facilities and safe working conditions — is essential. Courts must offer training on resilience and vicarious trauma, and provide confidential counselling and peer-support programs. At a policy level, legislatures must meet their constitutional obligation to fund courts sufficiently; failure to do so undermines both the rule of law and judicial wellbeing.
Where to find help
Judicial stress is not a private failing; it is a systemic issue that needs public empathy. National services such as Lifeline (13 11 14) and Beyond Blue (1300 224 636) offer confidential support. For younger people, Kids Helpline (1800 55 1800) and Headspace (1800 650 890) are available. Encouraging judges to seek help when needed promotes a healthier and more sustainable justice system.
Conclusion
Empathy for judges is not merely a matter of courtesy; it is integral to a fair and compassionate legal system. By acknowledging the mental‑health toll of judicial work, advocating for adequate resources, and supporting those on the bench, we uphold the rule of law and our shared humanity.