Judicial delays of three months to a year have led to two judges being sanctioned for misconduct.
Source: iStock
A complaint was made about Her Honour Judge Lynn Griffin in relation to delays in proceedings before the General Regulatory Chamber.
After submissions in appeals brought by the complainant, the judge did not issue judgment nor determine post-hearing applications and related matters for a ‘prolonged period of over a year’, a spokesperson for the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office said. The case was eventually directed to be reheard by a different tribunal.
Griffin stated the case was part-heard and the matters complained of concerned ‘judicial decision-making and case management’.
The JCIO added: ‘She explained that she had worked regularly on the case throughout the relevant period, that not all correspondence required a response and that outstanding matters would have been address within the judgment.’
Griffin said her workload, leadership responsibilities and personal circumstances attributed to the delay.
An investigation found Griffin, who had received a previous sanction for delay in another case, had ‘failed to progress proceedings with due diligence by delaying both the issuing of a judgment and the determination of post-hearing applications and related matters’.
The delay, the investigation found, was ‘substantial’ with proceedings ultimately beginning again before a new tribunal.
The lady chief justice and lord chancellor issued Griffin with a formal warning for misconduct.
District Judge Allan Pickup was also subject to a complaint from a litigant in person alleging that 11 weeks after the hearing written confirmation of an undertaking and an adjournment order had not yet been issued by Pickup, despite repeated requests to the court.
The complainant alleged that in the absence of written confirmation of the undertaking or adjournment order, they were unable to take enforcement action in relation to the undertaking and considered themselves to be left in a vulnerable position as a result.
The JCIO said Pickup accepted he did not draw the undertakings and approved order for more than 12 weeks after the hearing. The delay was ‘due to the pressure of court lists and boxwork’, Pickup said he had sought advice and assistance from his leadership judge to avoid a recurrence.
‘Without minimising the delay, DJ Pickup stated that during the hearing he fully explained the terms and consequences of the undertakings to the litigants,’ the JCIO added.
An investigation found Pickup failed to prove the written undertakings and approved order until 12 and a half weeks after the hearing. The delay amounted to misconduct as proceedings involved litigants in person and were of a ‘serious and sensitive nature’.
The investigation found Pickup had drafted the undertakings and order before becoming aware of the complaint but ultimately found mitigating factors were ‘outweighed by the impact of the delay on the complainant’.
The lady chief justice and lord chancellor noted Pickup had recently been issued with formal advice in relation to a delay in a separate matter. Finding the delay in this case was ‘significantly shorter’, Pickup was issued with formal advice for misconduct.
