Judges - dismissal and security of tenure

Dismissal and Security of tenure
Resolution of both Houses of Parliament required for removal of "Superior Judges"	Act of Settlement 1701 (now the Supreme Court Act 1981) the provided that their commissions should be quamdiu se bene gesserint (while they behave themselves). A Judge of the Supreme Court (High Court and Court of Appeal) can therefore be removed only for serious misconduct and/or by a resolution of both Houses of Parliament. Removal of a judge has happened only once. In 1830 an Irish judge Sir Jonah Barrington misappropriated £700 paid into the Admiralty court of Ireland. He fled to France, and was dismissed after an address was presented to the Crown by Parliament. No English judge has ever been removed from office using the resolution procedure.
Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice’s powers of removal of "Inferior Judges"	The 'Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice' can remove circuit judges and Recorders from office for incapacity or misbehaviour, failure to comply with training or sitting requirements, or sustained failure to observe the standards reasonably expected of a judge. Used very sparingly e.g. Judge Bruce Campbell dismissed in 1983 for smuggling substantial amounts of cigarettes and whisky into the country in his private yacht
One a judge always a judge...	There is a convention that prevents judges from returning to private practice, so once a judge, always a judge. In November 2007 the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, Jack Straw, said that lifting the prohibition would not increase diversity in the judiciary and that the ban would therefore remain in place. The announcement followed wide consultation on the subject. Only a handful of former judges have moved into consultancy roles in private practice. In 2005 Patents Court judge Sir Hugh Laddie controversially quit the bench to take up a consultancy role with a specialist intellectual property firm.
Judges retirement age	Judges retire at 70, more here.
Immunity from defamation proceedings	Judges and magistrates cannot be sued for libel or slander for things they say in court, even with malice, and a judge is immune from civil or criminal action in respect of anything he may say or do in the course of his duties.
Constitutional Reform Act 2005; dealing with complaints about judges (ranking below High Court Judges)... Office for Judicial Complaints (OJC) investigates (since 3rd April 2006) and if substantiated refers it to the 'Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice' for necessary action (for example disciplinary action). Otherwise the OJC will dismiss a complaint. The Lord Chief justice advises, warns or reprimands The 'Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice' suspends The Judicial Appointments and Conduct Ombudsman deals with dissatisfaction with the decision of the OJC.
Disciplining judges is the function of both the 'Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice' and the Lord Chief Justice jointly under section 108(3) Constitutional Reform Act 2005 (3 April 2006)	“(3) The Lord Chief Justice may give a judicial office holder formal advice, or a formal warning or reprimand, for disciplinary purposes (but this section does not restrict what he may do informally or for other purposes or where any advice or warning is not addressed to a particular office holder).”
Section 108 makes provision for the suspension of a judge particularly when they are subject to criminal proceedings, have been convicted, are serving a criminal sentence	Also, the judge may be suspended (but not removed) in other circumstances when it appears to the Lord Chief Justice with the agreement of the 'Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice' that the suspension is necessary for maintaining confidence in the judiciary. This is a very wide power - to suspend only - and could mean just about anything, it does not say what "maintaining confidence in the judiciary" means; it will have to be seen how relevant newspaper criticism is.
Office for Judicial Complaints (OJC)	The Act makes arrangements for an Office for Judicial Complaints (OJC) who considers complaints about: Judges Magistrates Tribunal Members Coroners The OJC will consider complaints - not about a Judge’s decision - but about the Judge’s personal conduct. Examples of potential personal misconduct would be the use of insulting, racist or sexist language.
900 valid complaints	In 2006-2007 the OJC dealt with about 900 valid complaints. Judges' conduct resulted in disciplinary action against two 'mainstream' judges. Two complaints were upheld against tribunal members. 28 were allowed for magistrates. Half led to removal from office. Others received reprimands, formal warnings and advice. The reasons for disciplinary actions included being subject to criminal proceedings, misuse of judicial status and inappropriate behaviour or comments. OJC annual report, here.
Complaints about High court judges and Appeal judges	The OJC assists the 'Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice' and the Lord Chief Justice in exercising their joint responsibilities for the personal conduct of judicial office holders. Section 108 of the Constitutional Reform Act outlines these disciplinary powers, and section 109 allows for the interpretation and defines the terms used in section 108. Section 109 lists the senior judges.
The Judicial Discipline (Prescribed Procedures) Regulations 2006	The regulations prescribe the procedures to be followed in the investigation and determination of allegations of misconduct by judicial office holders. The procedures govern the exercise of the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice's powers to remove judicial office holders and the Lord Chief Justice's statutory powers formally to advise, warn or reprimand them, or to suspend them from office.
What people complain about	The Office for Judicial Complaints (OJC) investigated 434 cases in its first 10 months. Allegations included racism, drink-driving and other improper conduct. Eight judges and magistrates were removed from the Bench and a further 10 reprimanded. In 2005, the Department for Constitutional Affairs investigated 250 complaints of misconduct. There is no explanation as to why there is such a huge increase. The first big test involved Judge Khan and the "real chilli hot stuff" scandal. The case concerned a Brazilian cleaner convicted of blackmail and theft, she revealed the activities of two immigration judges. These matters are still being investigated by the OJC.
Criticising judges
Traditional forms of criticisms will still occur, Parliament, press etc	Members of Parliament other judges and the press will still criticise judges which is often sufficient to limit behaviour of an errant judge. However, those making criticism will have to be mindful of the fact that scandalising the court, for example making scurrilous abuse and attacks upon the integrity or impartiality of judges amounts to the crime of contempt of court (R v New Statesman (Editor), ex parte DPP (1928)). Lawyers too need to remember that unlike liability for defamatory statements made in Court, lawyers enjoy no immunity from the law of contempt. Section 108 makes provision for the suspension of a judge particularly when they are subject to criminal proceedings, have been convicted, are serving a criminal sentence.
Ministers should not criticise judges	The Lords Constitution Committee said in a report entitled 'Relations Between the Executive, the Judiciary and Parliament' that former Lord Chancellor, Lord Falconer was "too slow" to defend a judge after government criticism of his sentencing of a Cardiff paedophile. Falconer had failed in his duty in 2006 when the then Home Secretary John Reid attacked the sentencing of paedophile Craig Sweeney. Sweeney abducted a girl of three and sexually abused her. The judge, John Griffith Williams, QC, sentenced him to 18 years and correctly told Sweeney he may be eligible for parole in five years. Reid said that the sentence was unduly lenient, but in fact it was a sentence based correctly on the legislation passed by parliament. The report said the sentencing row had been "the first big test" of the relationship between judges and the Lord Chancellor since the Constitutional Reform Act 2005. The peers said that judges were seen as "fair game" despite the fact that they cannot and should not publicly defend themselves in such situations, peers said. Peers warned that ministers' attacks on judges threatened their independence.
Drink-driving,	In July 1994 the Lord Chancellor said Drink-driving, A conviction for any offence involving violence, dishonesty or immorality, or Other offensive behaviour such as racial or sexual harassment, would be regarded as "misbehaviour" for which a Circuit judge could be removed from office.
Bias	Full-time judges are not allowed to hold paid company directorships, or to carry on any other business or profession. They must not sit on any case in which they have any direct personal involvement, or in which a reasonable person might suspect bias.
Committees of Enquiry into highly controversial matters	Sir Richard Scott headed the inquiry into the supply of arms to Iraq. Lord Nolan was the first chairman of the committee on standards in public life. Lord Saville chairman of the 1999 Inquiry into events of Bloody Sunday. Lord Phillips on BSE (2000)
No active politics	Full-time judges are not allowed to take an active role in party politics, and cannot be an MP.
Interviews	Since 1988, judges have been allowed to speak in public (and give interviews) about legal matters, but they have done so very rarely. Lord Ward did give two interviews before and after the judgement in Re: A (Children), the conjoined twins.
Unrepresentative of the community	A common allegation about the upper class, public school, Oxbridge education of white, male judges.
September 1999	To cope with an expected surge in human rights challenges in the courts six new judges were appointed, above the ceiling of 98. The judges are drawn from the circuit bench or, more often, directly from the Bar, in which case they often have to take a massive pay cut in accepting the judicial salary. While the top-earning QCs in the commercial sphere give up large salaries, in return they obtain job security, an index-linked pension and a knighthood. However, candidates regularly decline an offer of immediate appointment: in 1997 three were sounded out and all declined. High Court judges are appointed rarely: the average is one a year.