Delays to court ruling and order lead to sanctions against district judges

Two more district judges have been issued with formal advice for misconduct over a delay to producing an order or giving a ruling.

The latest announcements by the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office follows four other judges who were also issued with formal advice over judgment hand-down delays. Those delays were found to be between 15 and 18 months.

A litigant in family proceedings complained that district judge Michael Nicholson had failed to make an order following a hearing which took place in January 2024.

The JCIO said the judge ‘apologised unreservedly for his delay in producing the order’. He drafted the order and had it sent to the parties as soon as he was notified of the complaint. The judge told the JCIO that as ‘he sits part time in retirement his access to court files is limited to the times when he attends court’.

The JCIO added: ‘[District Judge Nicholson] also explained that before making the order he had to consider a substantial amount of documentation, and through an oversight omitted to set himself a reminder to do so until prompted by the court staff.’

The lady chief justice and lord chancellor agreed that a delay of five months, from the hearing to the issue of the order, amounted to misconduct. They issued the judge with formal advice after taking into consideration ‘his acceptance of the delay, his apology and immediate action to rectify the matter’.

District judge (magistrates court) Stephen Leake was also issued with formal advice for misconduct. A complaint was made in May 2024 that the judge delayed giving an oral ruling in cash forfeiture proceedings from 5 December 2022 until 11 October 2023 ‘despite the fact he had given a public deadline of 17 February 2023 to provide his ruling’.

The JCIO said the judge accepted he delayed given a ruling and said he was ‘very sorry’. It added: ‘He said that there had been reduced judicial resources in his area combined with a very heavy pressure of work but he recognised that he should have insisted on taking time out of court to deal with the case earlier and sought support and guidance.’

Following an investigation, the judge’s 10-month delay to give a ruling was found to be a breach of the standards of conduct justifying a disciplinary sanction.

The JCIO said that though the judge ‘was under a heavy workload at the time…the delay was well beyond the expected threshold of three months and was not in line with simple, speedy, summary justice’.

‘The parties did not appear to have been provided with reasons for the delay and that it continued despite the parties chasing the court. However…the judge was under a heavy workload and the delay was not intentional’, the JCIO added.

The lady chief justice and lord chancellor agreed that formal advice was ‘a reasonable and proportionate sanction’.