![David Lester (senior partner at Blythe Liggins), Darryl Barnes, Jagdeep Sandher (head of dispute resolution at Blythe Liggins)[4]](https://d1d8vslyhr7rdg.cloudfront.net/Pictures/274x183/4/2/8/116428_davidlesterseniorpartneratblytheligginsdarrylbarnesjagdeepsandherheadofdisputeresolutionatblytheliggins4_981603_crop.jpg)
The Judicial Conduct Investigations Office has long been regarded as a closed shop, giving as little information as possible about judges’ misdemeanours.
The general modus operandi is to give an outline of an incident in the vaguest terms, usually omitting details of when and where it happened or who made a complaint.
The JCIO statement from August relating to His Honour Judge Michael Slater, who fell asleep in court during a hearing, was a case in point, giving no explanation of what the hearing was about, the effect of his falling asleep and what the parties said in response (other than to clarify they declined the judge’s offer of a retrial).
Crucially as well, there was no expansion on the JCIO’s acceptance that the judge was dealing with an ‘unremitting workload’ – not only a mitigating circumstance here but potentially a source of wider concern.
Despite our better instincts, Obiter decided to ask for more, and submitted a freedom of information request asking for details of how the ‘formal advice’ to the judge was administered and what it contained. We tried to see off the inevitable rejection in advance by stressing none of these details should relate to the judge himself.
Alas, it was not enough to prise open the sealed vault.
The JCIO responded to us last week – more than seven days late – and explained it could not possibly meet our request. The JCIO was not defined as a public authority and so did not fall within the remit of the FOI Act. And while all disciplinary sanctions are issued in writing, it was unable to disclose the content.
The response added: ‘This is because it is deemed confidential by virtue of Section 139 of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005. Information about judicial disciplinary cases which relates to an identified or identifiable individual is confidential and must not be disclosed without lawful authority.’
The vacuum of information continues. A penny for the thoughts of solicitors dragged publicly and forensically through the disciplinary process, when decisions involving judges continue to be shrouded in secrecy.
