Do EATs sanction Judges for misconduct?

[TonyG]

I know an Employment Appeals Tribunal can correct a decision made as a result of judge misconduct but Ive never heard of them sanctioning a judge for misconduct. I put a complaint in about the conduct of the judge at my employment tribunal. At first it was accepted but then the judge assigned to investigate the complaint refused to do so as the conduct in question affected the tribunal decision, and he was not allowed to investigate any conduct which affects a decision. He said that is the job of the EAT. To my knowledge, EATs only investigate judge conduct with a view of correcting a decision; not with a view of sanctioning the judge. If I am correct, then judges have free reign to conduct themselves as they please in regard to tribunal decisions without being accountable to anyone. The worst that could happen for the judge is the case could be appealed and heard again. Do EATs sanction judges and are there any cases of this happening?

[TonyG]

Re: Do EATs sanction Judges for misconduct?

I guess that answers that then. Ive found a loop hole in the tribunal process which enables judges to be unaccountable for certain misconduct.

[charitynjw]

Re: Do EATs sanction Judges for misconduct?

Complaints concerning the conduct of an ET judge should be made to the appropriate Tribunal President.
http://judicialconduct.judiciary.gov...nal-president/

[TonyG]

Re: Do EATs sanction Judges for misconduct?

Yeah did that. The tribunal president accepted the complaint and passed it on to a regional judge for investigation. The regional judge then refused to investigate the complaint because it was about issues that would affect the employment tribunal decision. He said an employment appeals tribunal is the place to deal with such misconduct complaints. I can find cases where judge misconduct has lead to a rehearing of an employment tribunal but I cant find any cases where an employment appeals tribunal has sanctioned a judge for their misconduct.

If an employment judge can not be investigated by the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office for any misconduct that is linked to or would affect their judicial decision, and if the EAT do not sanction judges for their misconduct, then judges can get away with misconduct as long as it would affect their decision. That is a loophole if i ever saw one.

[charitynjw]

Re: Do EATs sanction Judges for misconduct?

It sounds as if the 42 days window for EAT appeals is gone.

[TonyG]

Re: Do EATs sanction Judges for misconduct?

Yes that window has gone. The point is, if it had got to EAT, the employment judge would not have been sanctioned for his misconduct and I cant find any cases where a judge has been sanctioned for misconduct by an EAT. If the EAT do not sanction judges for misconduct that affects judicial decisions, then who does?

[charitynjw]

Re: Do EATs sanction Judges for misconduct?

AfaIk, you can only appeal an ET decision if the judge erred in law, or there were incorrect procedures, or there was clear evidence of bias.
Successful appeal applications are pretty rare, & appeal applications are regularly thrown out at 'sift'.
It would seem that EAT is reluctant to interfere with the ET's decision; one reason being that the court of first instance had the benefit of observing the actions/demeanor etc of the parties involved.

[TonyG]

Re: Do EATs sanction Judges for misconduct?

AfaIk, you can only appeal an ET decision if the judge erred in law, or there were incorrect procedures, or there was clear evidence of bias.

Lets take bias. If the judge was bias in favour of one party, that would affect his decision. That bias ought to be serious misconduct because it has affected judicial proceedings and not given one party a fair hearing.

The Judicial Conduct Investigations Office will not investigate a complaint of bias simply because it is linked to a judicial decision. That then leaves the EAT.

The EAT will take a complaint of bias into consideration when deciding if the judge's decision was fair, and if the case should be sent back to tribunal for a rehearing. But the EAT, as far as I can see, do not sanction judges for the misconduct of being bias.

If a judge hit someone or verbally abused someone, the judge would be sanctioned in some way. I feel bias is a far more serious offence because it affects judicial proceedings. But as far as I can see, bias goes unpunished.

[R0b]

Re: Do EATs sanction Judges for misconduct?

Being biased towards someone in a case is grounds for appeal not misconduct in a judicial position. Misconduct would occur for example where a judge says inappropriate remarks to a fellow judge or to one of the parties in a claim that could for example be considered as discriminatory or racist etc.

But it almost certainly doesn't get punished for being biased, and I agree with the judge who investigated your complaint - bias is not a misconduct and doesn't fall within that remit but it goes fall within the scope of grounds for appeal, the result being that a retrial may be ordered.

[TonyG]

Re: Do EATs sanction Judges for misconduct?

"Judicial misconduct occurs when a judge acts in ways that are considered unethical or otherwise violate the judge's obligations of impartial conduct."

I would say being bias is unethical and violates the judge's obligations of impartial conduct. Looks like misconduct to me.

[R0b]

Re: Do EATs sanction Judges for misconduct?

Unfortunately I disagree, being bias to me is where someone gives a preference or favour towards a particular party whereas unethical is related to morals or some other type of conduct.

Bias is grounds for an appeal so if you think the judge has been bias then you have the appeal routes. It does not however warrant a sanction, as in all reality every judge is biased in one way or another. A judge reading a skeleton argument submitted by one party may form a view before the hearing and making a judgment without considering the other party's arguments may be considered bias, but it certainly isn't what I would call unethical conduct. A judge watching porn on the court system's laptop on the other hand is of course unethical conduct.

A judge who believes in one form of religion but attacks a party because they are of the view of another religion could be deemed unethical conduct. The reason why bias does not fall within the misconduct is because as the investigative judge pointed out, relates to the decision or facts of the case and they don't investigate complaints which relate to a judge's decision or its facts - that's for the appellate court.

[TonyG]

Re: Do EATs sanction Judges for misconduct?

You are welcome to disagree with me as i am to disagree with you. If a judge is bias in favour of one party, especially if that bias affects the judges decision, then by definition the judge could not be impartial.

[R0b]

Re: Do EATs sanction Judges for misconduct?

It is not the job of the JCIO to investigate matters of misconduct and indeed the JCIO website does clearly state that they can only look at matters of personal conduct, not complaints about any decisions or case management, that is the job for the appeal courts. If the JCIO needs to look at the facts, evidence or anything related to the judges decision when investigating your complaint, then it is simply outside of their remit.

[charitynjw]

Re: Do EATs sanction Judges for misconduct?

The word 'bias' has many meanings.
One of them is 'preference'.
Isn't this what judges do?
Prefer one party's reasons to those of the other party?

[TonyG]

Re: Do EATs sanction Judges for misconduct?

It is not the job of the JCIO to investigate matters of misconduct

'The Judicial Conduct Investigations Office' may not investigate all types of misconduct, but they certainly do investigate complaints about misconduct.

and indeed the JCIO website does clearly state that they can only look at matters of personal conduct, not complaints about any decisions or case management,

A complaint about bias is a complaint about how a judge conducted themselves but, because bias affects a judicial decision, the JCIO class it as a complaint about a decision and will not touch it. Any conduct, personal or otherwise, which can be linked to a judicial decision will not be investigated by the JCIO.

that is the job for the appeal courts.

Here we are back to this. The appeal court will investigate bias, but will not sanction a judge for being bias, even though being bias means a judge could not be impartial, which comes under Judicial Misconduct. At best the appeal court will send the case back for a rehearing. But what happens to the judge who conducted themselves in a manner that violated 'the judge's obligations of impartial conduct'? As far as I can see, the judge gets away with such conduct because the JCIO wont deal with it and, the appeal court will only deal with affects of it.