Updates, commentary and advice on immigration and asylum law
New citizenship deprivation course available now
Making a complaint about judicial misconduct

Making a complaint about judicial misconduct

As of 1 October 2013 there is a new formal mechanism for making complaints about judges. The process is set out in the Judicial Conduct (Tribunals) Rules 2013. A colleague alerted me to these rules and a recent comment on the blog persuaded me that it is worth highlighting them here.

Scales of Justice by Donkey Hotey
Scales of Justice by DonkeyHotey

Any formal complaint about a judge should not be lightly made as it is a serious matter. It is hard to see how disagreeing with the outcome of a case could be a legitimate matter of compliant, for example. An appeal would normally be the appropriate way forward. The way that immigration hearings are conducted can be unusually intrusive, though, and it is not unknown for immigration judges to cross the boundary of acceptable conduct. It is also worth bearing in mind that permitting one of the lawyers to cross the boundary of acceptable conduct may itself be a cause for complaint against a judge. One immigration judge was issued with a formal warning by the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office in 2013 for allowing “inappropriate questioning during an appeal hearing”.

A guide to good judicial conduct is provided that may be helpful as a standards guide.

In the rules, a complaint is defined as an allegation of misconduct. It must be made in writing in legible form and include the name or identifying information about the tribunal judge concerned, the date or dates on which the misconduct took place and the name and address of the person making the complaint. Complaints cannot be accepted and investigated where the complaint states that the judge concerned should not see the complaint document.

Complaints must be made within three months, although time can be extended in exceptional circumstances.

Rule 34 sets out various circumstances where the complaint will be dismissed, which I’m not going to list here. Rule 41 sets out grounds on which a judge can be summarily removed from judicial office (mainly upon various types of criminal conviction). Rules 51 onwards concern investigations into complaints and the process that will be followed, including appointment of an investigating judge and the setting up of a disciplinary panel.

If the behaviour occurs in the First-tier Tribunal Immigration and Asylum Chamber the complaint should be directed to Michael Clements, President of the First-tier Tribunal Immigration and Asylum Chamber, Field House, 15 Breams Buildings, London, EC4A 1DZ.

Colin Yeo

Immigration and asylum barrister, blogger, writer and consultant at Garden Court Chambers in London and founder and editor of the Free Movement immigration law website.

Not yet a member of Free Movement?

Sign up for as little as £20 plus VAT per month

Join Now

Benefits Include

  • Unlimited access to all articles
  • Access to our forums
  • E-books for free
  • Access to all online training materials
  • Downloadable training certificates