Judicial Commission of NSW Annual Report 2017-18

Judicial Commission of NSW — Annual Report 2017–18 54 Examining complaints Case studies explained to the complainant how the proceedings would be conducted and gave her such assistance as was appropriate for a self-represented person. There was no evidence from the sound recording that the magistrate had denied the complainant natural justice or had failed to give an opportunity to present evidence to support the application. At all times during the hearing, the magistrate treated the complainant in a courteous and judicial manner. Following its examination, the Commission was of the opinion that the complaint had not been substantiated and there was no misconduct on the part of the judicial officer. The Commission also noted that there was an adequate right of appeal available to the complainant. Having regard to these findings the Commission was required to dismiss the complaint. The complainant and the judicial officer were advised of the Commission’s reasons. Substitution for appeal The Complaint The complainant, who was self-represented in proceedings before the Local Court, alleged that the magistrate was biased against him, did not listen to his side of the story, was rude towards him and the decision was wrong. The Commission’s examination The Commission dismissed the complaint after reviewing the sound recording of the proceedings. The Commission found no evidence of rudeness and was of the view that the complainant had an adequate right of appeal to the District Court against the magistrate’s decision. People who are not satisfied with the outcome of a case often make a complaint to the Commission about the judicial decision maker instead of lodging an appeal. The Commission’s role is to examine complaints about ability or behaviour. It does not have authority to review judicial decisions, including findings of fact or law. That is a matter for courts of appeal and is recognised in the provisions of section 20 of the Judicial Officers Act 1986. This requires the Commission to dismiss complaints summarily where there is an avenue of appeal or review available. Delay in delivery of judgment The complaint The complainant, who was not a party to the proceedings, complained to the Commission that there had been a delay of over 2 years in the delivery of a judgment by a court. While not a party, the complainant did have an interest in the outcome of the proceedings. The Commission’s examination Following established procedures, the Commission advised the judicial officer of the complaint and provided a copy of it for information. The Commission requested the judicial officer to provide a response to the complaint to assist the preliminary examination. Before the examination was complete the judge delivered the judgment and provided a response to the complaint. In the response to the Commission the judge expressed regret for the delay and apologised to the parties for any inconvenience as a consequence of the delay. The Commission determined that the complaint should not be dismissed and referred it to the head of jurisdiction to deal with. The Commission advised the complainant of the outcome of its examination and conveyed the judge’s apology. Self-represented complainant alleged denial of natural justice The complaint The complainant represented herself to make an application for annulment of a penalty imposed for a traffic infringement notice. She alleged that the magistrate denied her natural justice, did not hear her application on its merits and failed to give her an opportunity to present evidence. The Commission’s examination The Commission reviewed the sound recording of the proceedings and considered the complainant’s submissions. The examination showed that at the commencement of the hearing the magistrate