Do EATs sanction Judges for misconduct?

[R0b]

Re: Do EATs sanction Judges for misconduct?

I agree with you that the meaning of bias, in its ordinary dictionary definition may mean that a person is not impartial, however we are talking about the JCIO and there is legislation and rules which cover this. Just like any other legislation where a dictionary definition may mean multiple things, a specific piece of law may actually narrow that definition. The relevant rules can be found here http://judicialconduct.judiciary.gov...s-regulations/ but in particular, the Judicial Conduct (Tribunal) Rules 2014 (para.34) specifically states that the JCIO must dismiss any complaint in certain circumstances including if the complaint relates to a decision. So this is a clear case where the law has narrowed the definition of a particular meaning may be in other case be wide.

What sanctions are you actually looking for? If the judge has been biased then an appeal may criticise the way in which the judge has acted, come to their decision or managed the case which may not be of a monetary value or dismissal but it may affect the progression of the judge if they decided to apply for more a senior position.

[TonyG]

Re: Do EATs sanction Judges for misconduct?

If the judge has been bias in such a way that it affected his decision then he is clearly not fit to sit in judgement and should be removed from making decisions. This isnt about where the judge has listened to both sides then comes to a decision based on the cases presented to him; this is about where the judge ignores evidence that will damage one party, and twists other evidence to aid the same party, and puts forward explanations for the actions of the same party when they have no explanations themselves. But does not afford this scope to the other party.

[charitynjw]

Re: Do EATs sanction Judges for misconduct?

I was (peripherally) involved in a case recently where the judge, in his reasons, clearly expressed his views, not so much about written evidence, but about the way a defendent acted when cross-examined.
The judge , based on the defendant's oral witness, decided that the defendant was 'unreliable'.
You could say that the judge was biased.
But I don't think you'd get far with the complaint.