Spotlight on ‘bully’ judges

Judicial watchdog says moves are afoot for protocol designed to assist with problem

New Zealand’s judicial watchdog says there is a “spotlight” on bullying behaviour by judges, as new figures show nearly 900 complaints were made against individual members of the bench during the past three years.

The numbers come as Judicial Conduct Commissioner Alan Ritchie this month released his annual report for the year ending July 31.

It showed there were 223 complaints about individual judges in the past year, down from 314 the previous year.

The grievances were for delays, discourtesy, incapacity, incompetence and bias — with a related failure to consider recusal.

Allegations of criminal behaviour, including corruption and conspiracy, were also made.

In his report, Ritchie said he was also “aware of a spotlight” on bullying behaviour by judges towards lawyers. A recent survey of the legal fraternity by the New Zealand Law Society, in response to a series of scandals which hit the country’s top law firms, found judges were to blame for 44 per cent of bullied lawyers working in criminal law and 50 per cent of barristers who have been bullied.

The Heads of Bench, each court’s chief judge, had a “brief meeting” with Chief Justice Sian Elias about judicial bullying last month, the report reads.

In his report, Ritchie said, on occasions and not in the current year, there was sufficient concern to justify referrals to Heads of Bench for bullying complaints.

“Guidelines for Judicial Conduct should leave little room for doubt about what is, or is not, appropriate behaviour. As former lawyers themselves, all judges should have etched in their minds, as though second nature, their obligation to treat lawyers with respect and courtesy.”

Ritchie said “moves are now afoot” for a protocol designed to assist with the problem.

In response to an inquiry from the New Zealand Law Society in April, Ritchie also said on “admittedly rare” occasions he “sensed an unwillingness” for lawyers to speak up.

“To make what may well have been eminently justifiable complaints to me,” he said. “Concern for career and livelihood would seem to be the likely cause [not to complain].

“My advice has been to inquire whether there might not be a very senior practitioner in the area prepared to make a complaint on behalf of court users generally.”

However, Ritchie said there would need to be specific examples of misconduct which could be checked against the court’s audio recordings.

During the year, 190 complaints were examined, down from 330 the previous year. Eight were referred to a Head of Bench, up from two the previous year. Three of the four complaints referred to the Chief District Court Judge, Jan-Marie Doogue, were for Judge John Brandts-Giesen, who discharged a domestic violence abuser last December in the Queenstown District Court.

He also told the offender during sentencing: “There would be many people who would have done exactly what you did, even though it may be against the law to do so.”

Judge Brandts-Giesen accepted his error and said he did not articulate the views he would usually express concerning violence, particularly domestic violence.

The other referral to Judge Doogue was made after Ritchie and Deputy Commissioner Kathryn Snook decided a judge had a conflict of interest. Judge Doogue told the Weekend Herald the public were entitled to expect findings made by an independent statutory authority to be heeded and acted on by the relevant Head of Bench.

Chief Justice Elias was unavailable for comment.