The complainants — a client and counsel — reported bias in the context of an ongoing trial, citing a lack of judicial impartiality both in the form and tone of questions posed by the judge

20030002 - The complainants — a client and counsel — reported bias in the context of an ongoing trial, citing a lack of judicial impartiality both in the form and tone of questions posed by the judge. After an initial conclusion that the complaint was unfounded, the complainants submitted a new allegation, claiming that the judge was using negative gestures and making negative comments.

The complainant was appearing before the judge in a contract law case during which the judge intervened on a number of occasions to ask questions and to point out inconsistencies in the complainant’s testimony

Audio tapes from the trial were reviewed and the judge was asked to comment in writing. In doing so, the judge admitted that he might have been a little severe in his interventions and promised in future to be more sensitive. At the same time, he maintained that he had a duty to intervene in an attempt to clarify the evidence. When the complainant’s new allegation was received, a Panel made up of three chief justices was established to consider the matter. The judge explained that his comments addressed not the character of the witness but the nature of his testimony.

Audio tapes from the trial were reviewed and the judge was asked to comment in writing. In doing so, the judge admitted that he might have been a little severe in his interventions and promised in future to be more sensitive. At the same time, he maintained that he had a duty to intervene in an attempt to clarify the evidence. When the complainant’s new allegation was received, a Panel made up of three chief justices was established to consider the matter. The judge explained that his comments addressed not the character of the witness but the nature of his testimony.

A Panel found that the judge had maintained the difficult balance between impartiality and the need to intervene in order to clarify the testimony. Thus, there was no cause for further action. The Council informed the complainants of its findings and closed the file. This case illustrates how the concerns of a complainant can be addressed promptly by a judge and how the Council is receptive to hearing new allegations in appropriate cases.