Two judges have received sanctions for misconduct over delays in producing judgments and approving an order.
Employment judge Liam Varnam was referred to the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office over ‘a “pattern of repeated and serious delay in completing judicial work: eight long delayed judgments and orders,” of which two judgments remained outstanding at the time of referral’.
A JCIO spokesperson said in representations Varnam cited personal issues ‘as a result of which his productivity had been reduced’, acknowledged the delays and expressed his regret for those delays.
Varnam had since taken steps with his judicial mentor to progress the outstanding matters.
The JCIO said: ‘The Guide to Judicial Conduct requires judicial office-holders to show “diligence and care in the discharge of judicial duties”. They are reminded that they should adhere to instructions and guidance on the delivery of judgments.’
An investigation found Varnam had delayed issuing judges in ‘at least’ eight cases but the judge had sought support from his mentor judge and resolved some of the delayed judgments.
The JCIO said the investigation ‘took into account that there had been a persistent pattern of delay with one judgment remaining outstanding’. It added: ‘EJ Varnam had not followed guidance to report outstanding judgments to his leadership judge, had not responded to chasing correspondence either at all or in a timely way and had not shown any insight into the impact of his failings on parties or the system as a whole.’
The senior president of tribunals, on behalf of the lady chief justice and with the lord chancellor’s agreement, issued Varnam with a formal warning for misconduct.
Read more
In a separate incident, a complaint was made to the JCIO by a party to proceedings that district judge Colin Bosman had delayed approving an order following a financial remedy hearing, which had caused significant prejudice.
Bosman, in his representations, accepted responsibility for the eight-month delay and provided a written apology. The JCIO said: ‘In mitigation he explained that he did not receive the draft order from the parties until four months after the hearing. He cited a heavy workload and admitted that he lost sight of the case. DJ Bosman also stated that he had set up a new system to ensure work is completed in a timely manner.’
An investigation found the eight-month delay for the approval of the order was ‘a breach of the standards of conduct expected of a judicial office holder’. It found the complainant had ‘clearly been disadvantaged by the excessive delay’.
The lady chief justice, with the lord chancellor’s agreement, issued Bosman with formal advice for misconduct.
Sanctions for misconduct by judicial office-holders are, in order of severity, formal advice, formal warning, reprimand and removal from office.
