A former magistrate would have been removed from office for misconduct after adverse findings were made against her in civil proceedings – had she not resigned first, the conduct watchdog has revealed.
According to a statement by the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office, Amie Canham reported she had been the subject of adverse findings in civil proceedings, though she had not declared her involvement in the proceedings before the adverse findings were made.
A spokesperson for the office said: ‘On appointment, magistrates sign a declaration and undertaking to be circumspect in their conduct and maintain the dignity, standing and good reputation of the magistracy at all times in their private, working and public life. They also agree to report their involvement in civil proceedings.
‘Ms Canham stated that she disagreed with the outcome in the civil proceedings, but that she was not in a position to lodge an appeal.’
An investigation found the facts of the case – the adverse findings in the civil proceedings and Canham’s failure to report that she was involved in civil proceedings – amounted to gross misconduct.
The matter was referred to a disciplinary panel, which agreed with the investigation’s conclusion. It found ‘that the adverse court findings against Ms Canham, and her failure to promptly report her involvement in those proceedings, amounted to gross misconduct’.
Read more
The panel acknowledged the ‘difficulties’ in Canham’s circumstances and she had no previous findings of misconduct against her.
The JCIO said: ‘However, [the panel] considered that Ms Canham had sought to attribute blame for the adverse findings against her, that she was critical of the court process which resulted in that finding.’
Although Canham submitted her resignation, the lord chancellor and lady chief justice continued to deal with the case. ‘They agreed with the findings of the disciplinary panel that Ms Canham’s actions had breached the high standards expected of a judicial office holder and that, had she not already resigned, she would have been removed from office,’ the JCIO said.
