Disciplinary Measures
If ODC is able to prove that a judge or prosecutor committed a disciplinary offence, the Council may impose disciplinary measures against the accused judge or prosecutor ranging in severity from a private written warning for relatively minor misconduct, to permanent removal from office when more serious misconduct is found.
Misconduct and Disciplinary Liability
It should be noted that in 2004, ODC received and reviewed 1428 complaints of misconduct lodged against judges and prosecutors; however, after a thorough and careful review and evaluation of the complaints, ODC took disciplinary action in only 14 complaints in which it was determined that the complaints were substantiated or founded, a figure that equates to only 0.98% of the 1428 complaints reviewed. Accordingly, it is easily seen that the overwhelming majority of complaints lodged were based on unsubstantiated or unfounded claims, which can be interpreted to suggest that the majority of judges and prosecutors working in the judicial system are in fact carrying out their official duties consistent with at least the minimal standards of ethical and professional responsibilities required under the Law.
The work of a judge or prosecutor always involves making difficult decisions, and those affected by these decisions will not always agree with the judge’s or prosecutor’s handling of a case or decisions made. The fact that you do not agree with how a case was handled or decided by a judge or prosecutor does not mean that the judge’s or prosecutor’s conduct should be reason for disciplinary action to be taken. Before ODC will consider taking disciplinary action against a judge or prosecutor, your claim of misconduct must involve factual elements specified under one or more of the disciplinary offences listed in the Law. Accordingly, before lodging a complaint of misconduct against a judge or prosecutor; first, ask yourself if your dissatisfaction or claim of misconduct is in reality about the actual conduct of the judge or prosecutor, or if it is really only about a decision made by the judge or prosecutor. If your dissatisfaction is about a decision of the judge or prosecutor, you should seek the advice of a lawyer to help you decide whether or not you should appeal the decision with which you disagree. Secondly, only if you have first determined that your claim or dissatisfaction is in fact about the conduct of the judge or prosecutor (and not about his or her decision), is it then appropriate for you to consider lodging a complaint of misconduct with ODC.
It should also be noted that assertions in complaints of misconduct which set forth claims that a judge or prosecutor delayed a case or committed procedural violations, requires first that ODC establish and prove that such delay or procedural violation was unjustified, and secondly, that they also form a pattern of recurrent delays or procedural violations committed by the judge or prosecutor. Accordingly, without additional evidence to prove intentional and unethical conduct, such as that the court or prosecutorial proceeding was intentionally delayed or procedural violation intentionally committed, due to bias, lack of impartiality, etc, a single instance of delay or procedural violation is typically not sufficient proof of a disciplinary offence for which the judge or prosecutor may be found liable.
Misconduct and Disciplinary Liability
It should be noted that in 2004, ODC received and reviewed 1428 complaints of misconduct lodged against judges and prosecutors; however, after a thorough and careful review and evaluation of the complaints, ODC took disciplinary action in only 14 complaints in which it was determined that the complaints were substantiated or founded, a figure that equates to only 0.98% of the 1428 complaints reviewed. Accordingly, it is easily seen that the overwhelming majority of complaints lodged were based on unsubstantiated or unfounded claims, which can be interpreted to suggest that the majority of judges and prosecutors working in the judicial system are in fact carrying out their official duties consistent with at least the minimal standards of ethical and professional responsibilities required under the Law.
The work of a judge or prosecutor always involves making difficult decisions, and those affected by these decisions will not always agree with the judge’s or prosecutor’s handling of a case or decisions made. The fact that you do not agree with how a case was handled or decided by a judge or prosecutor does not mean that the judge’s or prosecutor’s conduct should be reason for disciplinary action to be taken. Before ODC will consider taking disciplinary action against a judge or prosecutor, your claim of misconduct must involve factual elements specified under one or more of the disciplinary offences listed in the Law. Accordingly, before lodging a complaint of misconduct against a judge or prosecutor; first, ask yourself if your dissatisfaction or claim of misconduct is in reality about the actual conduct of the judge or prosecutor, or if it is really only about a decision made by the judge or prosecutor. If your dissatisfaction is about a decision of the judge or prosecutor, you should seek the advice of a lawyer to help you decide whether or not you should appeal the decision with which you disagree. Secondly, only if you have first determined that your claim or dissatisfaction is in fact about the conduct of the judge or prosecutor (and not about his or her decision), is it then appropriate for you to consider lodging a complaint of misconduct with ODC.
It should also be noted that assertions in complaints of misconduct which set forth claims that a judge or prosecutor delayed a case or committed procedural violations, requires first that ODC establish and prove that such delay or procedural violation was unjustified, and secondly, that they also form a pattern of recurrent delays or procedural violations committed by the judge or prosecutor. Accordingly, without additional evidence to prove intentional and unethical conduct, such as that the court or prosecutorial proceeding was intentionally delayed or procedural violation intentionally committed, due to bias, lack of impartiality, etc, a single instance of delay or procedural violation is typically not sufficient proof of a disciplinary offence for which the judge or prosecutor may be found liable.
1403 VIEWS
- 1 - 1 / 1
- 1