Can you sue a judge?

lifeandtimes

Hi,

Just a question from a scenario i have thought of.

Person A(male) is in family court with person B (female) regarding maintenance.

Person A is looking to have it reduced as they are on sick leave from work the last few months and on reduced payment with illness benifit.

The judge looking to try and get to the bottom of things asks person A why they are off work and what illness they have? Person A says they do not wish to disclose their illness. The judge pesters person A further for the answer and states he will hold him in contempt of court for not revealing the illness.

Person A states he is suffering from depression and other mental illnesses however is on the mend and under advice from his doctor will be fit for work soon.

Court continues as normal however after precedings person B uses this information to restrict access among other things and brings person A back to court stating due to his illness he is no longer suitable to adequately take care of the children. This send person A into a further depression state after person A was recovering and which prolongs his time off work ultimately losing his job and access with his Children.

Based in the above would person A be able to sue said judge as the information giving after they did not wish to disclose it has caused further hardships etc

Follow up question if not is there ever a scenario a person could sue a judge for what happened in court or are judges protected and untouchable?

Pat Mustard

Just because somebody suffers loss does not mean that there is a cause of action.

I don't see a cause of action in the scenario which has been outlined.

I will go further to say that I think a realistic remedy for loss of access to children lies in appeal, not in a proposed action (in negligence?) against a judge.

Furthermore, I think there are public policy reasons why the courts would be reluctant to allow disgruntled litigants to bring actions against judges. Judges are supposed to be able to make orders impartially and fairly, and without fear of repercussions from litigants. If their decisions could be swayed by threat of litigation, then wealthy serial litigants would be able to make an effective power grab in this country. That is not something that would be desirable.

lifeandtimes

Pat Mustard wrote: »

Just because somebody suffers loss does not mean that there is a cause of action.

I don't see a cause of action in the scenario which has been outlined.

I will go further to say that I think a realistic remedy for loss of access to children lies in appeal, not in a proposed action (in negligence?) against a judge.

Furthermore, I think there are public policy reasons why the courts would be reluctant to allow disgruntled litigants to bring actions against judges. Judges are supposed to be able to make orders impartially and fairly, and without fear of repercussions from litigants. If their decisions could be swayed by threat of litigation, then wealthy serial litigants would be able to make an effective power grab in this country. That is not something that would be desirable.

Thanks for your reply. What you've said seems pretty fair. Have you ever heard of or know of a scenario where a person could sue a judge based on actions in a court room?

Id assume the obvious stuff like violence and sexual harassment would be covered but anything regarding decisions made, maybe intentionally incorrect or biased rulings?
Also can a judge be brought up on disciplinary proceedings by a higher board Maybe?

Thanks again

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Peregrinus

Judges enjoy a pretty wide privilege for what they do in the discharge of their office.

Obviously, it's not unlimited, and you can imagine fanciful scenarios in which a judge, say, pulled out a gun and shot a barrister dead for questioning or challenging a ruling made by the judge. The judge would be charged with murder in that case. But it's hard to think of a plausible real-world scenario.

As Pat says, if a judge does something outrageous the focus is usually on reversing the effects or consequences of what he has done by appealing it, etc, rather than on punishing him personally. If what he does is outrageous enough he can be removed from office by the Oireachtas, or (informal but effective) pressed to resign by his colleagues and by the presiding judge of his court.

Victor

Peregrinus wrote: »

Obviously, it's not unlimited, and you can imagine fanciful scenarios in which a judge, say, pulled out a gun and shot a barrister dead for questioning or challenging a ruling made by the judge. The judge would be charged with murder in that case. But it's hard to think of a plausible real-world scenario.

Surely, the point is that their immunity is only where they are acting as a judge.

Their actions as executioner, not least in it being unconstitutional, are not immune.

Peregrinus

Victor wrote: »

Surely, the point is that their immunity is only where they are acting as a judge.

Their actions as executioner, not least in it being unconstitutional, are not immune.

Yes, of course. The reason a claim to privilege would be defeated is because, even though it's - ahem - an attempt to control the proceedings in his own court, shooting counsel is not on any view an aspect of the exercise of the judicial office. Whereas, say, making derogatory and unjustified comments about counsel whose position in court has irritated the judge probably would be protected by the privilege. Somewhere in there there's a line, and you have to come up with pretty fanciful examples to have a case that clearly falls on the wrong side of that line.

Icemancometh

Peregrinus wrote: »

Judges enjoy a pretty wide privilege for what they do in the discharge of their office.

Obviously, it's not unlimited, and you can imagine fanciful scenarios in which a judge, say, pulled out a gun and shot a barrister dead for questioning or challenging a ruling made by the judge. The judge would be charged with murder in that case. But it's hard to think of a plausible real-world scenario.

As Pat says, if a judge does something outrageous the focus is usually on reversing the effects or consequences of what he has done by appealing it, etc, rather than on punishing him personally. If what he does is outrageous enough he can be removed from office by the Oireachtas, or (informal but effective) pressed to resign by his colleagues and by the presiding judge of his court.

I think Brian Curtin shows the limited nature that these efforts can have to remove a judge.

Peregrinus

Icemancometh wrote: »

I think Brian Curtin shows the limited nature that these efforts can have to remove a judge.

The efforts to remove Curtin took a while to play out, but they succeeded; he did resign.

GM228

Fred Swanson wrote: »

I believe judges can be impeached for stated misbehaviour.

Only in the event of a joint resolution by both Houses of the Oireachtas I believe.

GM228

Peregrinus wrote: »

The efforts to remove Curtin took a while to play out, but they succeeded; he did resign.

Didn't he resign due to "health issues", suspiciously moments before the Oireachtas investigation was due to start, no doubt he would argue the government had no such success.

joeguevara

GM228 wrote: »

Didn't he resign due to "health issues", suspiciously moments before the Oireachtas investigation was due to start, no doubt he would argue the government had no such success.

The Oireachtas investigation was in full swing but used delay tactics to string out the investigation until the day that he could legally retire on full pension.

dr.fuzzenstein

Peregrinus wrote: »

The efforts to remove Curtin took a while to play out, but they succeeded; he did resign.

He waited a few days after he completed 5 years on the bench, so when he resigned the investigation against him was halted and he was now eligible for a pension.
Yes, a cracking success for the utter farce that is the justice system in Ireland, from utter incompetence of the gardai to the point where they are too stupid to even read a calendar to the utter freakshow that was his attempted impeachment later on to this cute hoor waiting long enough so he would get the golden handshake.
Utterly disgusting and if it wasn't so sad it would be laughable.

As for the OP, if people could sue a judge every time they felt aggrieved about the verdict, we could be sure the justice system would degenerate into complete chaos and paralysis.

GM228

joeguevara wrote: »

The Oireachtas investigation was in full swing but used delay tactics to string out the investigation until the day that he could legally retire on full pension.

Sorry I meant the day it was due to begin taking evidence.

Wasn't it Curtin who caused the various delays and not the Oireachtas by taking a lenghty High Court case and Supreme Court appeal questioning the constitutionality of the Oireachtas committee and then claiming to be medically unfit to take part. Once he failed his Supreme Court appeal evidence was to be taken by the committee, he resigned before they got that chance.

Really Interested

To answer the OP of the person believed the judge had acted outside his jurisdiction then options are appeal or Judicial Review. In relation to JR the person can not name the judge in the proceedings.

http://courts.ie/rules.nsf/SuperiorAmdLookup/No84-S.I.+No.+345+Of+2015:+Rules+Of+The+Superior+Courts+(Judicial+Review)+2015

joeguevara

GM228 wrote: »

Sorry I meant the day it was due to begin taking evidence.

Wasn't it Curtin who caused the various delays and not the Oireachtas by taking a lenghty High Court case and Supreme Court appeal questioning the constitutionality of the Oireachtas committee and then claiming to be medically unfit to take part. Once he failed his Supreme Court appeal evidence was to be taken by the committee, he resigned before they got that chance.

Yes that is correct.