Employment judge first to fall foul of new misconduct rules
An employment judge has become the first to be publicly censured under new rules that will see all judges and magistrates who are disciplined for misconduct have their cases publicised by the Office for Judicial Complaints (OJC).
Kenneth Clarke
Previously only high-profile cases of serious offences have prompted the OJC to make a statement, but after an internal review the Lord Chancellor Ken Clarke and Lord Chief Justice Lord Judge have updated the publication policy in relation to judicial conduct matters to include more minor reprimands.
The new rules came into force on 1 June and last week (8 June) employment judge Neeta Amin became the first to have her formal warning publicised following a delayed judgment, failure to meet her minimum sitting requirements in 2009 and failure to respond to correspondence from the Employment Tribunal.
An OJC spokesman said: “The Lord Chancellor and Lord Chief Justice found Judge Amin’s conduct to be below the standard of service expected of a judicial office holder in this respect and have issued Judge Amin with a formal warning.”
The move is designed to improve the openness and transparency of the complaints system.
A statement will normally be placed on the OJC website following a disciplinary sanction following a finding of misconduct.
It used to be made public only when a judge was suspended, removed - as in the case of wife-beating Judge James Allen QC (2 November 2011) - or if the case attracted significant media attention, such as Lord Justice Thorpe’s cow-feeding driving ban defence (13 January 2012).
Those relating to less serious punishments will be removed after five years, but Judge LCJ and Clarke can review publication based on the merits of the case.
The majority of disciplinary action taken by the OCJ is against magistrates who have not met the minimum number of sittings.
Readers' comments (2)
Michael Simons | 12-Jun-2012 11:20 am
One of the on-going expenses that should have had proper attention, are the numerous occasions when a case was listed before a Judge, his decision was subject to an appeal which succeeded and yet no action was taken to point out to him the error of his ways.
In the early 1970's, Lord Denning issued a Directive that copies of the Court of Appeal's Judgement shall be sent to the Judges concerned who had their Judgements overturned.
Several years ago I was allowed a time slot on the local Radion in Birmingham and had the privilege of a formal discussion with Sir Michael Davies and I put the above point to him. Sir Michael candidly admitted that the Directive had not been brought to his attention and added that Judges were required to attend a training course every 3 years to be brought up to date. I asked Sir Michael what steps did Judges take to acquaint themselves with the changes in common law that took place in the 3 years preceeding the next 3 yearly review? I did not receive a satisfactory reply.
With today's technology it is an obvious and easy step for the Lord Chancellor's department to fax copies of the Judgements to the Judges concerned so that the error of their ways is made known to them.
There are far too many cases listed for trial before a Judge "who is not fit for the purpose". The present situation provides for Judges to hear cases of a specific speciality who had no worthwhile experience of this type of case before they were elevated to the bench.
There is a simple solution namely before a Judge is appointed onto the bench, for them to be interviewed about their own experties and lack of it, and for cases to be listed before them that fall within their own expertise.
Several years ago, I was contacted by the Registrar to the Court of Appeal who asked me for a time estimate for an appeal hearing. I asked "you tell me the Judges and I will do my best to give you an accurate time estimate." His reply was that it was not until a few days before the hearing that he will be aware of the names of the Judges who will hear the appeal. I illicite3d from the Registrar that his office is not given any information as to the expertise a Judge acquired during the time he was counsel. What a stupid time wasting system we have at the highest level.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
anon | 12-Jun-2012 12:50 pm
I wonder, statistically, what are the chances of the first ever repremanded judge being female and of ethnic origin? She probably got struck by lightening and won the lottery too, all in the same month of sundays.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment