PROMOTING A CULTURE OF JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY
Hugh Small
PROMOTING A CULTURE OF JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY Professor Andrew Le Seuer is a distinguished legal scholar who in his time has been the Legal Adviser to the House of Lords Select Committee on the Constitution and has advised on all aspects of constitutional law and practice. When the United Kingdom Supreme Court was taking shape he gave a lecture on Developing Mechanisms for Judicial Accountability in the UK, in the course of which he said: The ‘accountability revolution’ has lead to an expansion in the concept of accountability and the application of accountability practices to an ever-wider range of public authorities. In a mature democracy, those who exercise significant public power ought to hold themselves open to account, and judicial power should not be excluded from this imperative…The challenge is to develop mechanisms of judicial accountability that do not undermine judicial independence. In 2006, the Jamaican Justice System Task Force chaired by the late Professor Barry Chevannes was established by the Government of Jamaica to undertake a comprehensive review of the state of the justice system and “to develop strategies and mechanisms to facilitate its modernisation so that it is better able to meet the current and future needs of Jamaicans. Its premise was that a modern justice system will be more efficient, accessible, accountable, fair and able to deliver timely results in a cost-effective manner. The membership of the Task Force was drawn from a wide cross-section of social groupings and members of the legal establishment including Chief Justice Lensley Wolfe, Justice Panton of the Court of Appeal, representatives of the Jamaican Bar Association and the Advocates Association. The Task Force made a report (the Chevannes Report) in 2007. Paragraph 44 of the report explicitly identified the need for accountability in the justice system when it stated: Like all public institutions, the justice system is also subject to heightened demands for greater real accountability. There is increased pressure to impose on the judicial management efficiencies, performance indicators and standardisation that have been part of the reform of other branches of government but which judges have to reconcile with their abiding duties of professional autonomy and constitutional independence. The Chevannes Report recommended that the current mission statement of the Courts, “Timely delivery of a high standard of Justice for all”, be renewed by a new statement; The Jamaican Justice System is available, accessible, accountable and affordable, on a timely courteous, respectful, flexible, fair and competent basis for all.” Today, on the eve of 2017, I will examine the promotion of a culture of judicial accountability in the context of the following: 1
a) By identifying the responsibility of the Legislative and Executive branches of government to establish the financial and institutional framework for judicial accountability, b) Scrutinising whether the judiciary has accepted the goals of the Chevannes Report, and c) Looking at the responsibility of the legal profession to be the leading change advocates for the achievement of a new culture of accountability.
The Responsibility of the Executive and the Legislature Recommendations 3.1 and 3.2 were for (a) all political parties to publicly commit to a 10-year reinvestment strategy in the justice system, and (b) the Government of Jamaica to set aside an envelope of funding for justice system reform, in addition to an increase in the regular funding for the Ministry of Justice, on an annual basis beginning in 2008 and continuing until at least 2017. The most eloquent commentary of the political commitment of politicians to Justice System reform is that the Chevannes Report was never tabled in the House of Representatives and the Senate. Nevertheless, the former Minister of Justice, Mr A.J. Nicholson QC, under whose watch the Task Force was established, has acknowledged the difficulty of advancing the cause of justice in Jamaica’s political culture. Writing in 2010, when he was no longer in office, he referred to the justice sector as the poor cousin in the allocation of financial resources. It had been accepted by the Government, over the years, across all administrations, there had been no meaningful commitment to address the needs and to furnish the tools that are required for the proper management and delivery of the services that the system is meant to provide. The sparing allocations provided to that ministry, over time, represented ample and unanswerable testimony of the 'poor cousin' designation that had been given to the entity in annual budgetary arrangements. The dire needs of the justice sector could, therefore, no longer be sacrificed on the altar of "the economic challenges of the times.i Both political parties had representatives on the Task Force. Neither of the parties made the commitment to set aside an envelope of financial resources on an annual basis between 2008 and the current financial year. Whenever the opportunity to pay lip service arises they are in full praise of the importance of the judiciary in the overall development of the country. An occasion arose in January this year when the Governor-General swore in the new President of the Court of Appeal when former Prime Minister asserted: A cohesive society is the fundamental platform on which investments are attracted and sustainable economic growth is built. A cohesive society requires 2
that our people believe in their hearts that the system provides them with access to justice when they require it. We are determined to invest in justice for our people, and build a justice system that is efficient, accessible to all, and of the highest quality. So while all other sectors are important, Justice must be at the heart and centre of the society. It stands tall as the essential DNA of all that Government seeks to achieve for our people.ii The throne speech for the current fiscal year 2016 to 2017 contained a commitment to the introduction of legislation on Judicial Accountability that will be enacted to ensure judicial accountability for performance and behaviour in office. Nevertheless, there is still no commitment to provide an envelope of funds. No appraisal of the conduct of our Executive and Legislative branches can ignore the reality of the economic austerity that we have endured. This has been a challenge that justice systems have faced in developed countries. For example in the United Kingdom the Economist reported: The changes over the past six years of Tory-led government have been substantial. Judges’ pay has been frozen and their pensions cut, prompting some to sue the government. In spite of Mr. Gove’s relative leniency, the legal-aid budget has been slashed by over one-third in real (inflation-adjusted) terms, from over £2.2 billion in 2010 to £1.6 billion in 2015 . . . Not surprisingly, practitioners have squealed. Last year, a lobby group, pronounced, “our justice system is in crisis”. In his annual report in January the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Thomas, declared bleakly “our system of justice has become unaffordable to most”. He added that judges’ morale was low, their workload had hugely increased and they were concerned over the adverse effects on access to justice of the recent changes.iii Some would say that with such a dramatic reduction, our system will break. But that cannot be permitted. If it breaks we lose more than our courts, tribunals, lawyers and judges. We lose our ability to function as a liberal democracy capable of prospering on the world stage, whilst securing the rule of law and prosperity at home. On an earlier occasion Lord Chief Justice Thomas said: Our task is therefore to ensure that we uphold the rule of law by maintaining the fair and impartial administration of justice at a cost the State and the litigants are prepared or able to meet. We can only do that by radically examining how we recast the judicial system so that it is equally if not more efficiently, able to carry out its constitutional function.iv
3
The responsibility of the Judiciary In turning attention to the Judiciary, I wish to focus on how the judiciary sees itself and contrast that with what the Task Force envisioned, bearing in mind that the judiciary was represented on the Task Force and signed off on the Report and its specific recommendations. In 2007, the mission statement for the Jamaican courts was "Timely delivery of a high standard of justice for all�. That statement still appears on the websites of the Court of Appeal, the Supreme Court and the Parish Courts. The Task Force recommended that by 2017 the renewed vision statement should be: The Jamaican justice system is available, accessible, accountable and affordable on a timely, courteous, respectful, flexible, fair and competent basis for all. Speaking in 2013 at the swearing-in of two new Supreme Court judges, Chief Justice McCalla observed that Judges are accountable to the people that they are sworn to serve and that they must perform in accordance with the oaths that they have taken. I‌. do swear that I will faithfully bear allegiance to Jamaica, that I will uphold and defend the Constitution of Jamaica, and that I will administer justice to all persons alike in accordance with the laws and usages of Jamaica, without fear or favour, affection or ill-will. So help me God. The Judiciary at all levels and all sectors of the legal profession were signatories to the Chevannes Report. They were parties to the statement at paragraph 37: One could argue that today's justice system is destined to produce access and delay problems, because each aspect of the system can be used to the advantage or for the convenience of various participants - lawyers, clients, judges, court administrators, police, jurors, and witnesses. Together these practices culminate in a system marked by a general culture of delay. Troubling as it is to learn that Judges have not published their Judicial Conduct Guidelines in the Jamaica Gazette as is the case with the Code of Conduct for Justices of the Peace, even more worrying is the following extract from the Judicial Conduct Guidelines: The Statements and Principles are advisory in nature. Their goals are to assist judges with the difficult ethical and professional issues, which may confront them from time to time, and to help members of the public to better understand the judicial role. They are not intended to be and shall not be used as a code or a list of prohibited forms of behaviour and they do not set out standards defining judicial misconduct. Here are some other extracts:
4
a. Judges should diligently perform their judicial duties, which, broadly defined, include not only sitting in court and making decisions, but other judicial and administrative tasks essential to the proper operation of the courts. b. Judges should endeavour to perform all judicial duties, including the delivery of reserved judgments, efficiently and with reasonable promptness. In exceptional cases and where, for good and sufficient reasons, a judge believes that a judgment is likely to be reserved for more than three months, it shall be the responsibility of the judge to inform the Chief Justice (in the case of judges of the Supreme Court, Masters and Resident Magistrates) or the President (in the case of judges of the Court of Appeal) of the circumstances causing or contributing to the delay. c. Members of the judiciary shall promote awareness of the principles and the provisions set out in this document. The tenor of this document explains a great deal of the problems that the profession and the society experience regarding a major area of concern, delays in delivery of reserved judgments. The principle of making decisions diligently and the principle of delivering reserved judgments within three months is so widely disregarded by some judges that the Jamaican Bar Association was constrained to bring it to the attention of the Chief Justice in February 2016. I list in and appendix to this paper, some examples of how other countries deal with Codes of Conduct and the sensitive issue of delays in delivering judgments.
The responsibility of the Legal Profession Judicial office is at the apex of the skills that members of the Bar can develop. My examination of the responsibility of the legal profession to promote accountability by the judiciary is based on the assumption that whether we are in full-time employment of the State or are in house employed in different private sector enterprises or are employed or self-employed in private practice, we have a duty to protect and advance the interests and reputation of the judiciary. The Canons of Conduct I, III, V and VIII (b) speak directly to different aspects of these obligations especially to maintain the dignity of the courts and public confidence in the honour, integrity, dignity, and efficiency of the members of the judiciary and the system of justice. Canon I requires that we must assist in maintaining the dignity of the Legal Profession. Canon III stipulates that it is our duty to maintain the constitution and the laws of the State and assist in improving the Legal System 5
The language of Canon V is emphatic. Each of us has a duty to assist in maintaining the dignity of the Courts and the integrity of the Administration of Justice. The obligations under this canon include the following: (c) An attorney shall not wilfully make false accusations against a judicial officer and shall support such officers against unjust criticism. (d) Where there is ground for complaint against a Judicial Officer, an attorney may make representation to the proper authorities and in such a case the attorney shall be protected As I develop on how these canons impinge on our duty to promote judicial accountability I will look at the far-reaching implications of Canon VIII (b). Where in any particular matter explicit ethical guidance does not exist, an Attorney shall determine his conduct by acting in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and efficiency of the legal system and the legal profession. In summary, these canons cover the important subjects of (a) maintaining respect for Judges and the Courts, (b) the obligation to maintain a respectful attitude to the courts, and (c) the duty to protect Judicial officers against unjust criticism, the right to make representations on proper grounds against a judicial officer. These are obligations that the law imposes on us in our roles as attorneys. We voluntarily accept them when we take oaths of office on being admitted to practice in the courts of Jamaica. They are obligations that speak to duties that we owe to each other; to the judiciary and most importantly the duty we owe to the public maintain respect for our Judges. It hardly needs stating that attorneys can only ask the profession and the society at large to hold judges to the highest standards of accountability, if they, individually and collectively, practice their duty to assist in maintaining the dignity of the courts and the integrity of the administration of justice. While we must accept that, the trial judge has full responsibility to ensure that the conduct of cases before the courts are conducted so that the constitutional right of citizens to timely justice is delivered many of the delays caused by attorneys. This applies to both private bar and public bar practitioners. Counsel has a duty to the court and the public to actively assist in dealing expeditiously with matters before the court. Deliberate adoption of delaying tactics must become a thing of the past.
6
Public Perceptions of the state of the Judiciary There is anecdotal evidence that confidence in the legal system continues to decline. I am unaware of any studies that have been undertaken by The University of The West Indies or any civil society group. The only survey I found was one undertaken by LAPOP in 2014. LAPOP is Latin American Public Opinion Project. It surveys all the countries in the Western Hemisphere every 2 years from 2005. The wok is carried out by Vanderbilt University and the UWI with support from USAID. The Internet at www.vanderbilt.edu/lapop/jamaica.php contains specific reference to the Jamaican surveys. The survey published last year showed that in Jamaica the following downward movements were recorded under the heading Democratic Deficits in Trust and Confidence, on a scale of 0 to 100 between 2012 and 2014: A. Trust in the Justice System fell from 52.6 to 41.1; B. Trust in the Police fell from 48 to 38.3; and C. Support for Vigilante Justice grew from 31 to 36.3 In addition to this survey, there are other perceptions of how the public regards the judicial system. In May 2015 the Chairman of the Police Federation publicly called on the Chief Justice to develop and publish a Judicial Code of Conduct to guide and hold judges accountable. His ire was fired when a judge sitting in the Brown's Town Parish Court wrongfully ordered that a Woman Corporal be placed in custody in February notwithstanding that she knew that there was only one cell that already had two male prisoners in it. The response from the judiciary was a release from the Court Management Services stating that the matter was placed before the Judicial Service Commission on May 14. It said an update was supplied to the police federation and the matter is to be further considered at the Commission’s next meeting later this month. As far as I am aware, even although this incident led to a sickout by Police in St Ann, the public has not been informed of the action taken by the Commission. The Judicial Services Commission functions under Colonial Regulations promulgated in 1961. The Commission still shares administrative and secretarial staff with other Public Service Commissions. The Chairman of the Public Service Commission, a body that regulates the Civil Service, is still an ex officio member of the Judicial Services Commission. Its regulations do not provide a clear pathway for disgruntled members of the public to make complaints against judges. They have no mechanisms that permit a member of the public to report judicial officers against whom they have
7
complaints. Indeed, there is no public record of complaints made against judges in the 54 years since this Commission was established. The complaint of the Police Federation Chairman directs attention to another matter the ambivalence of the Judiciary towards a Code of Conduct. At that time none of the websites of the Supreme Court or the Parish Courts contain any references to the existence of a Judicial Code of Conduct. As recently as 27 June 2016, a leading and publicly aware attorney Mr Bert Samuels wrote: Judges in Jamaica are not subjected to a code of conduct. They enjoy wide powers to maintain order and good conduct in their courts and chambers. The drastic punishment of removal from office of a Supreme Court judge is the only disciplinary provision set out in the Constitution at Section 100 (4). This is for misbehaviour or physical or mental ill health, which prevents them from discharging their functions. The judge administers the law but he is not above the law. The rule of law is offended when any of its players are allowed to breach the constitutional rights of the land and get away with it scot-free. In professional games, the misconduct of the referee is as egregious as the misconduct of the players. I call upon those in charge of the judiciary to, with due haste, draft a code of conduct for judges. This will preserve the dignity of the judiciary. Its absence, in my humble view, puts that high office at risk of the lowering of respect for its occupants.vvi It was only after this that steps were taken to have the code of conduct published on the websites of the courts. A member of the academic staff of the University of the West Indies, surprisingly, who is not attached to the Law Faculty, recently wrote articles that point the way forward in bringing “greater accountability to Jamaica’s judicial system”. He offered the following suggestions, some of which have been made before:vii a. Turnaround Times: Judges of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal should be given a time band within which written judgments should be handed down. The standard turnaround times could be arrived at by using the average length of time of a representative number of cases. The chief justice and the president of the Court of Appeal should be required, as part of the function of their respective offices, to monitor the adherence to turnaround times, and where there are repeated failures to take action. This action should include referral to the Judicial Services Commission and the range of disciplinary
8
action possible should include demotion. Invoking the seniority of the chief justice or the president should in no way relate to the exercise of a judge in ruling on a matter as he or she sees fit, in keeping with the 1983 Montreal Declaration and the 1995 Beijing Statement on judicial freedom and independence. b. Standardisation of the times for matters to be heard: The courts should also be required to implement a system whereby matters move through the system in a predictable manner, subject to the various applications that may arise in the course of the matter being heard. The rules of the court should set various time limits for actions to be taken. The judge, in my view, has a duty to ensure that the procedures are not abused and that the time frames are observed. c. Establishment and publication of service standards: The courts should be required to establish and publish service standards. This approach currently exists for public utility companies. In order to give force to those service standards, there should be a mechanism established, perhaps with the Court Management Services, which would monitor the adherence of the courts to those service standards. These standards would include the time frames for the hearing of cases and the handing down of the judgments, among other service standards that the court would develop and impose on itself as a pledge to the citizens that it serves. d. Publication of annual performance reports: The Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal should be required to publish annual reports on their websites. These reports should include, among other things, the number of cases heard and number of judgments handed down within the established time frames, with explanations of variations, etc. These reports are published on the websites, as against presented to Parliament, to signal that the accounting is to the people directly. All of these suggestions were contained in the Chevannes Report.
A Ray of Hope On 4 January 2016 Justice Dennis Morrison was sworn as President of the Court of Appeal. He led the court for part of 2015 during the pre retirement leave of Justice Seymour Panton. In June 2016 the first ever Annual Report of the Court of Appeal was published on the website of that courtviii. The site also contains a document titled Judicial Conduct Guidelines with Commentaries (revised 2014). This code was not developed in the manner envisaged by the Chevannes Report. Recommendation 4.20 should be developed on the basis of a broad consultation and that, once adopted should be publicised to make the public familiar with how judges
9
are to perform, involve them in the system of checks and balances and facilitate their recognition of the judiciary’s responsibility to them. Looking at the 2015 Annual Report of the Court of Appeal, it sets out information on all aspects of the courts work, including statistics relating to all categories of cases on appeal, broken down into the three legal terms and the vacation. It also contains statistics on arrears, reasons for judgments that remain outstanding since appeals were heard. It contains a chart that shows how the delay in receiving transcripts for criminal trials from 1 in 2000 to 98 last year. Comparable statistics for transcripts for civil appeals rose from 10 in 2003 to 60 in 2015. At page 4 he makes a compelling case for the increase of the complement of the judges of the court: But it remains a matter of notorious fact that the court is under-resourced and the judges who staff it hopelessly overworked. All Presidents of the court over the last many years, Mr. Justice Panton hardly least among them, have highlighted the lamentable reality that the court’s complement of judges has remained static for almost 50 years, notwithstanding the phenomenal increase in its jurisdiction. Over the period since 1967, when the number of judges in the Court of Appeal was increased to seven, the population of Jamaica has moved from 1.85 million to 2.8 million. In 1967, appeals to the court were taken in the main from decisions of judges of the Supreme Court, of whom there were nine, and resident magistrates, of whom there were 22. The corresponding number in each category today is 34 and 55 respectively. In addition, the court now hears appeals from three Masters of the Supreme Court, as well as specialist courts and tribunals, such as the Revenue Court, the Gun Court and the Disciplinary Committee of the General Legal Council, none of which was in existence in 1967. Justice Morrison has set an example of leadership that demonstrates that he accepts the need for public accountability. This report is of the standard of equivalent reports by judicial leaders in developed jurisdictions.
The Bar must accept the Challenge The Jamaican Bar Association is the most representative organisation of lawyers in Jamaica. Among its six objectives are working for the improvement of the legal system and promote the integrity and good name of the legal profession in Jamaica. Recognising that in order to do the work and fulfil their constitutional functions, every judge in every court of Jamaica must come into contact with practicing attorneys, it is our duty to promote conduct by attorneys and judges that enchases public confidence in the legal system. The present government indicated in the Throne Speech and the Sectoral Debate speech of Justice Minister Delroy Chuck, that it is about to introduce legislation in
10
Parliament to Development of recommendations for legislative and administrative measures mechanisms to enhance and ensure judicial accountability for performance and behaviour in office. Our duty is to lead the professional and public discussions of relevant features that must be contained in the legislation. The following areas are suggested for consideration: 1. Judges work under difficult conditions with inexcusably limited resources. A commitment to the envelope of resources suggested by the Chevannes Report will ensure, that over time, these difficult conditions will be addressed. 2. Along with resources, physical surroundings, additional judges, judicial clerks and other support staff, judges should be allowed some time between cases to write judgments and to read where there are voluminous materials with which they have to deal for some cases. 3. Legislative Protocols for complaining against judges who have procrastinated in discharging their constitutional duty to deliver judgments in a timely manner, 4. Publication of Annual Reports on the operations of all courts and tribunals in a manner similar to that established by the President of the Court of Appeal; 5. Revision of the code of conduct for Judges to include stipulations that the code is more than advisory for judges, that it exists for the protection of the rights of the public, and that sanctions are applicable for breaches of it. 6. Repeal and replacement of the pre-Independence Judicial Services Regulations 1961 with a modern set of regulations that reflect the principles of accountability that expressly give the public the procedural roadmap for complaints against judicial officers. 7. Create an institutional framework for an independent and impartial body, similar to the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office to hold judges accountable. 8. Implementation of the following recommendations of the Jamaica Justice System Reform Report a. Revising the Mission Statements of the Court to state, "The Jamaican Justice System is available, accessible, accountable and affordable, on a timely, courteous, respectful, flexible, fair and competent basis for all.� b. Establishment and publication of service standards for judges c. Review of complaints and the prescription and enforcement sanctions, and also to ensure both the fairness to all parties of any procedures that are established for this purpose and the protection of the public interest.
11
Conclusion I again return to the Chevannes Report. In 2007 it spoke of the sense of urgency that the people of Jamaica feel about the need for justice system reform and said that many of the persons consulted said that the system was “on the brink of collapse�. 9 years later it has not collapsed. Nevertheless there is the evidence from the Latin American Public Opinion Project survey that distrust in the system has increased. A heavy responsibility rests on us as members of the Bar, to intensify our attention to these signs. We must not allow the Legislative and Executive arms of the State to take the lead in discussions on judicial accountability. I end with a quote from Honore Balzac, the 19th century playwright. Writing in the momentous readjustments of post-Napoleonic France said: To distrust the judiciary marks the beginning of the end of society. Smash the present patterns of the institution rebuild it on a different basis ... but don't stop believing in it. Hugh SmallŠ 19 September 2016
12
Appendix A Australia A feature of the practices of the Superior Courts in Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and Britain is that there are published protocols for complaining against judges who have malingered in completing cases or in delivering judgments after trials. Australia has the most detailed protocols for federal and state jurisdictions designed to ensure that decisions are handed down, and reasons are given, as expeditiously as possible. The benchmark for the handing down of reserved judgments is within 3 months of the hearing or receipt of written submissions.ix The protocols facilitate the involvement of the presidents of the bar Associations and Law Societies who refer the matters to the relevant chief justices without disclosing the identity of the party or practitioner making the enquiry. The Chief Justice will then take up the matter with the judge or judges whose decision is reserved.
The Court's judicial complaints policy also establishes a protocol relating to the delivery of reserved judgments. The protocol is designed to ensure that decisions are handed down, and reasons are given, as expeditiously as possible. The benchmark for the handing down of reserved judgments is within 3 months of the hearing or receipt of written submissions.x There are specific procedures for making complaints: 1. If a practitioner is concerned about a delay in delivering a reserved judgment in a case in which he or she is acting, the practitioner should raise the matter with the President of the Bar Association or Law Society of the State or Territory in which the case was heard, providing the name of the parties, the name of the judge or judges whose decision is reserved and the date on which the decision was reserved. 2. If a practitioner is concerned about a delay in delivering a reserved judgment in a case in which he or she is acting, the practitioner should raise the matter with the President of the Bar Association or Law Society of the State or Territory in which the case was heard, providing the name of the parties, the name of the judge or judges whose decision is reserved and the date on which the decision was reserved. 3. In the Australian State of Victoria there is a Protocol for Reserved Judgments September 2007. It provides that if a party or practitioner wishes to enquire about a delay in the delivery of a reserved judgment of this Court in a case in which he or she is a party or acting, as the case may be, they may ordinarily raise the matter in writing with the Chairman of the Victorian Bar Council or the President of the Law Institute.
13
The Chairman or the President will refer the inquiry to the Chief Justice without disclosing the identity of the party or practitioner making the enquiry. The Chief Justice will then take up the matter with the judge or judges whose decision is reserved. The Court will then notify the parties of the anticipated delivery date of the reserved judgment. It is the aim of the Court that, as far as practicable, the delivery of a judgment occur within three months from the date from which the judgment was reserved save where the judge otherwise indicates.
New Zealand High Court judgment delivery expectations are that all judges aim to deliver decisions as promptly as possible. The judges of the High Court expect that 90% of decisions will be delivered within three (3) months of the last day of hearing or receipt of the last submission. This period does not include court vacations. On occasion a judge may advise the parties at the hearing that the judgment will take longer than three months to deliver due to the complexity of the case or other pressing matters of court business. The published procedure for inquiry about delayed judgments provides the following guidance for the public: Where a litigant or a lawyer is concerned about a delay in delivering a reserved judgment in the High Court in a case in which they have an interest, then an inquiry should be made to court manager of the court where the matter was heard. The court manager will make an inquiry as to the likely delivery time and respond to the inquiry in writing. The court manager will ordinarily be able to advise the inquirer when the judge believes the reserved judgment will be able to be released. The court manager will also advise other parties to the proceedings of any expected date of delivery. United Kingdom In the United Kingdom legislation governs the procedure under which aggrieved persons, including lawyers may obtain redress against judges who misconduct themselves. The legislation established The Office for Judicial Complaints. The Lord Chief Justice and Lord Chancellor may however decide jointly to: issue press statements in any case; decline to issue a statement, or to remove statements from the JCIO website, based on the individual circumstances of a case. A press statement will normally be placed on the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office’s website in cases where a formal disciplinary sanction has been imposed upon a judicial office holder
14
(including magistrates) following a finding of misconduct; or, where a judicial office holder requests the Lord Chief Justice and the Lord Chancellor to do so. Press statements relating to disciplinary sanctions below removal will be deleted from the website after a period of one year. Press statements relating to sanctions for suspension or removal from office will be removed from the website after a period of five years. The following extracts are samples of the activities of the JCIO taken from the website of the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office in relation to 2016 at http://judicialconduct.judiciary.gov.uk/975.htm JCIO 09/16 16 February 2016 STATEMENT FROM THE JUDICIAL CONDUCT INVESTIGATIONS OFFICE Senior Coroner Chinyere Inyama A spokesperson for the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office said: “Senior Coroner Chinyere Inyama, Senior Coroner for West London has been subject to a conduct investigation after temporarily misplacing a police report in relation to a case before him. The Lord Chief Justice and the Lord Chancellor found that Coroner Inyama’s failure to report the loss to the Chief Coroner at the time it occurred amounts to misconduct and have issued him with formal advice regarding the future handling of sensitive information.” STATEMENT FROM THE JUDICIAL CONDUCT INVESTIGATIONS OFFICE JCIO 33/16 3 August 2016 The Honourable Mr Justice Timothy King A spokesperson for the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office said: “The Right Honourable Mr Justice Timothy King has been subject to an investigation into his conduct in respect of a delay in producing a judgment. The Lord Chancellor and Lord Chief Justice found that the delay was unacceptable and concluded that Mr Justice King’s behaviour in respect of this matter fell below the standards expected of a member of the Judiciary. Mr Justice King has been issued with a reprimand.” JCIO 35/16 19 August 2016 STATEMENT FROM THE JUDICIAL CONDUCT INVESTIGATIONS OFFICE Mr Andrew Pascoe A spokesperson for the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office said:
15
“Mr Andrew Pascoe, a Deputy District Judge sitting Magistrates’ Courts in the North of England and the Assistant Coroner for North Lincolnshire and Grimsby, has been removed from both judicial posts following the outcome of a Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) hearing. The SDT found that Mr Pascoe was guilty of professional misconduct in connection with financial irregularities in his Firm in his capacity as a solicitor. The Tribunal fined Mr Pascoe £20,000 and conditions were placed on his ability to practise. The Lord Chancellor and Lord Chief Justice found that Mr Pascoe’s conduct fell below that expected of a judicial office holder and have removed him from office.”
JCIO 31/16 29 July 2016 Recorder Robin Belben A spokesperson for the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office said: “Recorder Robin Belben was subject to a conduct investigation in relation to his undischarged bankruptcy. The Lord Chancellor and Lord Chief Justice found that Recorder Belben’s status as an undischarged bankrupt was incompatible with his role as a judicial office holder and have removed him from office.” South Africa An article on the Internet in 2013 reported that In June, four judges, all from the Pretoria court, South Africa’s busiest, faced a judicial conduct tribunal for alleged gross misconduct because of outstanding judgments. Chief Justice Mogoeng asked: "Why is it always the same people? Judgments are reserved three years, four years, five years; same people. And we’re not talking about two judgments, we’re talking about anything between five and 15 judgments or even more. Why?" Judge Mlambo said it was also those judges who had many part-heard trials who had reserved judgments. Thus, despite having a lighter workload, they still could not get their judgments finished.xi
i Gleaner August 29, 2010 ii Gleaner January 5, 2016 iii
Law in a time of austerity The Economist February 27, 2016
16
iv
The Rt. Hon. The Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, Reshaping Justice (3 March 2014), available online at http://2bquk8cdew6192tsu41lay8t.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Full-speech-ofLord-Chief-Justice.pdf v
Sunday Gleaner 26 June 2016 Judicial Code of Conduct needed by Bert Samuels Sunday Gleaner 26 June 2016 Judicial Code of Conduct needed by Bert Samuels vii Re-imaging our justice Part 2: accountability and citizen empowerment Jamaica Observer September 7, 2016. Written by Dr. Canute S Thompson, a certified management consultant and lecturer in educational policy, planning and leadership in the School of Education, The University of the West Indies, Mona. He is a co-founder of the Caribbean Leadership Re-Imagination Initiative. viii http://www.courtofappeal.gov.jm/annual-report vi
x
www.fedcourt.gov.au/feedback-and-complaints/judicial-complaints www.fedcourt.gov.au/feedback-and-complaints/judicial-complaints
xi
http://www.bdlive.co.za/national/law/2013/04/11/outstanding-judgments-worry-chief-justice
ix
17