Judges vote unanimously to adopt new conduct and ethics guidelines

Judges have voted to adopt new conduct and ethics guidelines which will be the framework for the first judicial misconduct complaints procedure here.

At a remote meeting on Friday of the 167 member Judicial Council, the guidelines were unanimously supported by the participants. The guidelines were circulated to the judiciary last month.

In a foreword to the judges, Chief Justice Mr Justice Donal O’Donnell recommended their adoption. He said public confidence in the justice system “depends on the integrity and authority of the judiciary”.

As well as promoting the “highest standards” of judicial behaviour, the guidelines will also provide a framework for the conduct review function of the council, he said.

Prepared by the council’s Judicial Conduct Committee (JCC), the guidelines are based on international principles known as the Bangalore Principles, aimed at ensuring judicial independence, impartiality, integrity, propriety and the appearance of propriety, competence and diligence and equal treatment of all who come before the courts.

They are intended to guide judges as to their conduct and to form the framework for a detailed judicial misconduct complaints procedure which, under the Judicial Council Act 2019, must be operable by June 28th next.

The JCC, which comprises the Chief Justice, presidents of the other four court divisions, three judges elected by vote of the judiciary and five lay members, will have regard to the guidelines when determining whether complaints amount to judicial misconduct.

Departure from standards

Under the 2019 Act, judicial misconduct means conduct (whether an act or omission) by a judge, whether in the execution of their office or otherwise, that constitutes a departure from acknowledged standards of judicial conduct and brings the administration of justice into disrepute.

The JCC has prepared a complaints procedure which sets out how a complaint may be deemed admissible, withdrawn, resolved via an informal resolution process or investigated by a panel of investigation which makes a report and recommendations to the JCC.

The first stage of the procedure involves the council’s registrar, Kevin O’Neill, deciding if a complaint is admissible. If deemed inadmissible, a complainant can seek an internal review of the decision. Admissible complaints which are upheld may be addressed in various ways, including by advice, action such as a training course, admonishment or a combination of those.

The final decision on a complaint is for the JCC which, in some cases, may seek to hear from the complainant and judge before the complaint is finally determined. Any such hearing will normally be in public unless the JCC decides a private hearing is required.

If the JCC determines a matter relating to judicial misconduct or capacity is so serious it requires referral to the Minister for Justice for the purposes of Article 35.4 of the Constitution, the committee, even in the absence of a complaint, “must” make that referral. Article 35.4 concerns the government’s power to remove a judge from office.

Complaints may only be addressed via an informal resolution process if the complainant consents to that course.

Independence

In relation to the principle of judicial independence, the guidelines provide, inter alia, judges shall exercise the judicial function independently on the basis of the their assessment of the facts and conscientious understanding of the law “free of any extraneous influences, inducements, pressures, threats or interference, direct or indirect, from any quarter or for any reason”.

On impartiality, the guidelines provide detailed guidance concerning when a judge should withdraw or recuse themselves form hearing proceedings, including if they, or a member of their family, has an economic interest in the outcome of the dispute.

The principle of integrity requires, inter alia, that judges shall ensure their conduct “is above reproach in the view of a reasonable observer”.

In regard to propriety, and the appearance of propriety, the guidelines state, inter alia, that judges, “as a subject of constant public scrutiny”, must accept personal restrictions “that might be viewed as burdensome by the ordinary citizen” and shall “not use or lend the prestige of the judicial office” to advance their own or anyone else’s private interests.

In regard to the principles of competence and diligence, the guidelines include statements that the judicial duties of a judge take precedence over all other activities and should be performed “efficiently, fairly and with reasonable promptness taking into account available resources and the length or complexity of the case and other work commitments of the judge”.

Judges, the guidelines state, shall “be patient, dignified and courteous” in relation to litigants, jurors, witnesses, lawyers and others with whom they deal in an official capacity.

On foot of the principle of equality of treatment of all before the courts, the guidelines state a judge shall be aware of, and understand, diversity in society and differences arising from various sources, including race, colour, gender, religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, age, marital status, sexual orientation, social and economic status. Judges shall not manifest bias or prejudice towards any person or group on irrelevant grounds, the guidelines state.