A High Court judge has been issued with a formal warning for misconduct after he made ‘extensive suggestions’ in a draft of an independent assessment which formed part of his promotion application. Mr Justice Picken said he ‘very much regretted that he had caused anyone to question his integrity’.
The judge applied for promotion to the Court of Appeal earlier this year. As part of his application, he nominated two independent assessors who were required to provide an ‘evidence-based assessment’ of his suitability for the role.
The Judicial Conduct Investigations Office said guidance by the Judicial Appointments Commission states candidates can speak to their nominees to suggest people to speak to and highlight examples of their work. The assessment however is confidential and must not be disclosed to the candidate. Confidentiality guidance appears ‘not only on the JAC website but also prominently and unequivocally on the assessment form itself’.
One of the nominated assessors accidentally sent the JAC a partially completed draft of their assessment form. It included ‘extensive comments and suggestions by Mr Justice Picken indicating that it had been disclosed to him’.
In representations to the JCIO, Picken said he had a ‘brief conversation’ with his nominee about who could be spoken to and ‘the need’ for the assessment to be evidence-based. When the nominee had emailed a draft of the assessment and asked for comments, ‘parts…appeared not to be evidence-based and there was no reference to the nominee having spoken to the people whom they had discussed’.
Picken said he had not read the reference to confidentiality at the head of the assessment form and did not think there was any prohibition on his nominee sharing a draft with him.
Referring to Picken’s representations, the JCIO said Picken’s intention was to ‘ensure his nominee understood the need for the assessment to be evidence based’.
The JCIO added: ‘A nominated judge concluded that Mr Justice Picken should have declined to comment on the draft assessment and deleted it without reading it. They also found that some of the judge’s comments on the draft went well beyond simply reminding the assessor of the need for evidence-based examples. They included extensive suggestions which were aimed at improving the assessment.’
The lord chancellor and the lady chief justice agreed with the recommendation to issue Picken with a formal warning.
A spokesperson for the JCIO said: ‘By reading and then commenting on the draft assessment his actions compromised his integrity and could have seriously undermined confidence in the judicial appointments process.’
