Judges, like all other citizens, are subject to the law, but the need to protect judicial independence in the interests of the whole community means that, in respect of their judicial conduct, they cannot be subject to direct discipline by anyone else, except in the extreme cases of proved misbehaviour or incapacity. In those circumstances, and in those only, a judge may be removed from office by the Governor-General upon a request from both Houses of the Parliament.

Judges are accountable through the public nature of their work, the requirement that they give reasons for their decisions and the scrutiny of their decisions on appeal. (With rare exceptions, all court hearings are open to the public and can be reported in the news media, and many judgments of the Court are available to the public through the internet (anonymised, if required, in respect of family law proceedings).

The Federal Circuit Court of Australia Act 1999 (Cth) was amended by the Courts Legislation Amendment ( Complaint) Act 2012 (Cth) to assist the Chief Judge to deal with complaints  about judges and, in particular, to provide immunity from suit for the Chief Judge as well as participants assisting the Chief  Judge in the complaints  handling process, and to exclude from the operation of the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth) documents of a court arising in the context of consideration and handling of a complaint about a judge.

The complaints procedure does not, and cannot, provide a mechanism for disciplining a judge. It does, however, offer a process by which complaints by a member of the public about judicial conduct can be brought to the attention of the Chief Judge and it provides an opportunity for a complaint to be dealt with in an appropriate manner.

If a complaint is made about the conduct of another judge of the Federal Circuit Court, the Chief Judge may decide whether or not to handle the complaint, and may then dismiss the complaint, handle the complaint or arrange for another complaint handler to handle, or assist to handle, the complaint.

A person who is authorised by the Chief Judge to handle a complaint will not be a current judge of the same court as the judge who is the subject of the complaint. The person will be of appropriate seniority to handle a complaint.

For constitutional reasons, the participation of a judge in responding to a complaint is entirely voluntary. Nevertheless, it is accepted that a procedure for complaints can provide valuable feedback to the Court and to its judges. It can also provide the Court with opportunities to explain the nature of its work, correct misunderstandings where they have occurred and, if it should fall short of judicial standards, to improve the performance of the Court.

Confidentiality

Unless otherwise stated, all information and documents relating to the preliminary assessment of a complaint, a referral of a complaint to the Attorney-General, an investigation of a complaint by a Conduct Committee and any other dealing with a complaint in the Court is confidential. To protect that confidentiality, as explained above, access to any documents that relate to a complaint being dealt with in the Court is not available under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth).

Complaints about delay

A party may express concerns or complaints about delay in the delivery of a judgment. In such a case a party can send a letter to the president of the bar association or the law society in the State or Territory in which the case was heard and request that the president take up the matter with the Chief Judge. The president will then convey the concern or complaint to the Chief Judge without identifying which party complained. The Chief Judge will look into the matter and, if appropriate, take it up with the judge concerned. Complaints of this nature can also be made directly by letter addressed to the Chief Judge.

Complaints about cases that could be dealt with on appeal

Parties who are concerned about the result of a case or about any other matter in connection with the case that is capable of being raised in an appeal should consider whether or not to appeal the decision. It should be noted that time limits apply in respect of appeals.

If a complaint is received about matters that are, or were, capable of being dealt with by an appeal or any other application to a court, the Chief Judge will write to the person who has made the complaint advising that person that the matter cannot be dealt with under the complaints procedure.

Complaints about judicial conduct

How complaints are made

A complaint about judicial conduct must be made by letter addressed to the Chief Judge. It must identify the complainant, the judge about whom the complaint is made and the judicial conduct about which the complaint is made. Judicial conduct, for the purposes of this procedure, means conduct of a judge in court or in connection with a case in the Federal Circuit Court, or in connection with the performance of a judge’s judicial functions.

How complaints are handled

The Chief Judge, or an authorised complaint handler, will not handle a complaint (otherwise than summarily to dismiss it) unless he/she believes that:

  1. circumstances giving rise to the complaint may, if substantiated, justify consideration of removal of a judge in accordance with paragraph 72 (ii) of the Constitution; or
  2. circumstances giving rise to the complaint may, if substantiated, adversely affect performance of judicial or official duties by the judge, or have capacity adversely to affect the reputation of the Court of which the judge is a member.

The Chief Judge, or an authorised complaint handler, will not deal with a complaint (otherwise than summarily to dismiss it) about conduct of a judge occurring before the judge was appointed to office unless the matter, if substantiated, could justify parliamentary consideration of removal.

Complaints alleging criminal conduct will generally be referred to the Australian Federal Police in the first instance. The Chief Judge or Conduct Committee (see below for an explanation of the formation of a Conduct Committee) may adjourn consideration of any matter if it is being considered by a court or another body.

On receiving a complaint, the Chief Judge will make a preliminary assessment of the complaint and decide whether to:

  1. summarily dismiss the complaint;
  2. deal with the complaint in consultation with the judge concerned, without establishing a Conduct Committee;
  3. establish a Conduct Committee; or
  4. refer the complaint to the Attorney-General.

The Chief Judge will dismiss the complaint if:

  1. the complaint is frivolous, vexatious or not in good faith;
  2. the complaint is misconceived;
  3. the subject matter of the complaint is trivial;
  4. the matter complained about occurred at too remote a time to justify further consideration;
  5. another means of redress is available to the complainant;
  6. the complaint relates to the exercise of a judicial function that was subject to appeal or review; or
  7. the person complained about is no longer a judge.

The Chief Judge will notify the complainant and judge concerned (where appropriate) if a complaint is dismissed.

The Chief Judge may deal with a complaint in discussion with the judge concerned.

In dealing with the complaint, the Chief Judge may take any other action he/she thinks appropriate in discharging the effective and efficient management of the administration of the Court. This includes measures he/she believes are reasonably necessary to maintain public confidence in the Court, including, but not limited to, temporarily restricting the judge to non-sitting duties.

The Chief Judge will notify the complainant and judge concerned (where appropriate) where a complaint is resolved to the Chief Judge's satisfaction.

Referral of a complaint to the Attorney-General

The Chief Judge will refer a complaint directly to the Attorney-General if he/she:

  1. has consulted the judge about a complaint;
  2. is satisfied the matter to which the complaint relates occurred; and
  3. s satisfied that the matter is sufficiently serious to warrant parliamentary consideration of removal from office.

The Chief Judge will notify the complainant and the judge concerned about this step.

The Attorney-General may, in consultation with the Chief Judge, bring the complaint to the attention of the Parliament.

The Parliament may decide to establish a Parliamentary Commission under the Judicial Misbehaviour and Incapacity (Parliamentary Commissions) Act 2012 to inquire into specified allegations of misbehaviour or incapacity in relation to the judge.

Establishment and function of a Conduct Committee

On receiving a complaint about judicial conduct or incapacity the Chief Judge may establish a Conduct Committee to investigate and handle the complaint.

The functions of a Committee will be to investigate the complaint and report to the Chief Judge on its investigation. If the Committee recommends parliamentary consideration of removal on the grounds of proved misbehaviour or incapacity, the Chief Judge may refer the complaint to the Attorney-General.

The composition of the Committee may be determined on referral of a complaint to the Committee by the Chief Judge

The Chief Judge may authorise the Committee, in writing, to handle the complaint as a body of complaint handlers.

A Committee will consist of three nominees of the Chief Judge and may include:

  1. another current senior member of the Court, a retired judge of the Court or a retired judge of another court;
  2. generally, nominees will be of an equivalent or higher seniority to the judge concerned.

Another head of Commonwealth jurisdiction may be nominated as a member of a Conduct Committee.

Following a referral by the Chief Judge, the Conduct Committee will investigate the complaint to determine whether it is substantiated.

Investigation

A Conduct Committee may undertake such investigations into the complaint as it considers appropriate with a view to conducting the investigation as quickly as proper consideration of the matter permits. Procedural fairness will be afforded to a judge who is the subject of an investigation. A Conduct Committee may hold hearings and in doing so will:

  1. afford the judge the opportunity to address the Conduct Committee, without compelling his/her attendance at a hearing;
  2. allow the judge to be represented by a legal practitioner;
  3. provide the judge with a reasonable opportunity to comment on any proposed report to be made by the Committee; and
  4. provide a copy of the report to the judge and keep the judge informed of any outcome.

No adverse inference can be drawn by a Committee should a judge choose not to attend a hearing or, if he/she does, to decline to answer questions that are asked.

Report of the Committee

On completion of the investigation and hearing, the Conduct Committee will report to the Chief Judge on the results of its investigation of the complaint.

The Chief Judge retains discretion to seek a further report from the Committee or convene another Conduct Committee to re-examine an issue or consider new issues.

The Conduct Committee will be assisted by officers of the Court.

Incapacity

If the Chief Judge believes that a judge may have an impairment that affects the discharge of his or her judicial duties, the Chief Judge may convene a Conduct Committee to investigate that question.

The Conduct Committee, if it suspects that a judge is physically or mentally unfit to exercise the functions of a judicial office, may request the judge to undergo a medical or psychological examination.

The judge may not be compelled to undertake such an examination, and no adverse inference can be drawn if the judge refuses.

Outcomes of investigation

The Conduct Committee will recommend that a complaint be dismissed if it concludes that the complaint has not been substantiated or if any of the grounds on which the Chief Judge may summarily dismiss  is found to apply.

If the complaint is not dismissed, the Committee may conclude that the matter:

  1. could justify parliamentary consideration of removal from office;
  2. does not justify parliamentary consideration of removal from office, but may affect or have affected the performance of the judge’s duties; or
  3. does not justify parliamentary consideration of removal from office but, nevertheless, adversely affects the reputation of the judiciary.

If the Committee decides a complaint has been substantiated, it will send a report to the Chief Judge setting out its conclusions and a recommendation as to what steps might be taken to deal with the complaint, including training, to assist the Chief Judge in discussing the complaint with the judge concerned.  A copy of the report will be provided to the judge concerned.

It is a matter for the Chief Judge whether to act on the Committee’s advice.

The Conduct Committee will cease dealing with a complaint if the judge ceases to hold office for any reason.

The Chief Judge will notify the complainant of the outcome of the Conduct Committee’s investigation.