Appointment to the bench is not a licence for judges to be gratuitously rude to those appearing before them

1 February 2015 by

helmet3The target of this barb was the case management style of HHJ Dodds. The author, one of three Judges of Appeal empanelled in Re A (Children) [29 January 2015] (we will have to await a full judgment to discover which as – so far – only a Lawtel summary is available).

HHJ Dodds is well known to readers of this blog. His style of case management was also analysed (and found wanting) by the Court of Appeal the following day in Re S-W (children) [2015] EWCA Civ 27 (30 January 2015). The judgments leave one to ponder whether these cases are a product of the stresses that have emerged from the greater expectations now put on the shoulders of judges to case manage litigation or whether, as previously discussed in this blog by David Hart QC here, it is a problem that arises with clever judges who find that they are, by temperament, not inclined to listen patiently to other people (generally considered to be a core part of the job description).

In Re S-W (children), HHJ Dodds made final care orders concerning three children at a hearing designated for case management less than three weeks after the application was made. The Court of Appeal overturned the orders (no party supported the judge’s actions) deeming care proceedings to be inapt for summary judgment in all but the most exceptional of circumstances (e.g. consent). Amongst the enumerated problems were that, the father of one of the children had not been served with notice of the proceedings, the children’s Guardian had not seen the children and there were no final care plans before the court. The judge did not even give a reasoned judgment. The Court of Appeal had to look at the transcript instead. This revealed that the judge had made his settled (and trenchantly expressed) view known within minutes of the hearing commencing. According to the court,

All the parties crumbled under the judge’s caustically expressed views.

His riposte to the request from the children’s Guardian to see more material was to express the view that a recent Practice Direction on Bundles signalled the end to what he referred to as, “this sort of Victorian detail”. He wished one of the children “every good luck in the world but the Children Act and the court has nothing to do with it”. The Court of Appeal described the approach of HHJ Dodds as, “fundamentally unprincipled and unfair” with Lewison LJ stressing that, “A closed mind is incompatible with the administration of justice” and cited the judgment of the President in Re TG:

The task of the case-management judge is to arrange a trial that is fair; fair, that is, judged both by domestic standards and by the standards mandated by arts 6 and 8 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1950 (as set out in Sch 1 to the Human Rights Act 1998) (the Convention).

In his judgment the President adapted a familiar aphorism by saying,”‘justice can … be denied if inappropriately accelerated..” He went on,

a parent facing the removal of their child must be entitled to put their case to the court, however seemingly forlorn. It is one of the oldest principles of our law – it goes back over 400 years, to the earliest years of the seventeenth century – that no-one is to be condemned unheard.

He added that a parent who wishes to give evidence in answer to a local authority’s care application must surely be permitted to do so and they should also (in almost all circumstances) be permitted to challenge the evidence against them by means of cross-examination.

The judge suggested the representative of the child put her crash helmet on.

The other case concerned the treatment by HHJ Dodds of an application brought on behalf of a child so as to make a Declaration of Paternity (which was in doubt). Thus far, the judgment of the Court of Appeal in Re A (Children) of 29 January 2015 is only reported on Lawtel. However, it is apparent that all parties agreed that a DNA test should be undertaken at the outset of the hearing, However, HHJ Dodds gave the impression that his mind was closed to this proposition from the outset in so far as his opening gambit to the representative of the child was to say that she might want to put her crash helmet on. This was swiftly followed by a threat of costs. The judge commented that

the lunatics had truly taken over the asylum, and that just because the lunatics had said that they wanted something did not mean that they should be spoon-fed.

He then disclosed that he was bitterly resentful at how much of his Saturday he had spent reading material that he described as “codswallop”. Unsurprisingly, he dismissed the application for a declaration. The decision was overturned in the Court of Appeal on the basis that HHJ Dodds had not allowed proper submissions, his premature threat of costs indicated a closed mind to the application and he had given no proper reasons for dismissing it. The Lord Justices of Appeal concluded that his approach went far beyond anything that could be characterized as case management and deplored his unrestrained and immoderate language. If the Telegraph is to be believed here it would appear that judgment is awaited in at least one other case involving another judge where an appeal was allowed on the basis of “intemperate judicial dialogues.” It may be that the Court of Appeal is about to give fresh meaning to its “Civil Division.”

Sign up to free human rights updates by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS

Related posts

 

7 comments


  1. fireflyphil says:

    This seems to me to be another situation where we need to ask “Who watches the watchmen?”

  2. Jerry Lonsdale says:

    Having been before HHJ Dodds many times in the past one would simply say it was only a matter of time before some of his actions or rather comments would be put under scrutiny.

    When we see Judgments and articles like this how can any person have any faith in the judicial system, we all can be grouchy from time to time, excessive work loads do not help however once you start being rude and resort to personal attacks then the argument is almost lost.

    One would hope that with these judgments the alarm bells are still ringing and that the judge, in this case HHJ Stephen Dodds, [contrary to Daily Mail calling him Robert] should be given a leave of absence, whether it is to simply recharge his batteries or reflect on how he is dealing with some of the most difficult cases in the court system, before making the ultimate decision to hear cases again.

    In July of last year HHJ Dodds was in the spotlight again following the same undertone of language was used, Andrew Pack over at Suesspicious Minds blogged about that matter here

    http://suesspiciousminds.com/2014/07/02/go-on-then-appeal-me-i-dare-you/

    Do Judges have regular checks to see if they are still functioning, probably already answered and I guess the answer to that is no,

  3. Geoffrey says:

    Thank you, Martin. Re S-W was the wrong case but,, as you said, the Court of Appeal wasn’t very happy there either!

  4. Martin Downs says:

    The phrase appears in Re A which, at the moment, I am afraid only appears as a summary in Lawtel. It was a summary Judgment. Please encourage the law reporters to arrange for a full transcript/full approved Judgment

  5. Geoffrey says:

    The words “Appointment to the bench is not a licence for judges to be gratuitously rude to those appearing before them” could not be found in http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2015/27.html. Was I looking in the wrong place or is the shade of Dr Bowdler at work in BAILII?

  6. Shirley says:

    perhaps a few magistrates would benefit from reading this.

  7. somasekhars says:

    Thanks for this. Please do blog a link to the judgement when it is available. Justice hurried is justice buried, indeed.

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the UKHRB


This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.

Subscribe

Categories


Tags


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus costs costs budgets Court of Protection crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance Obituary parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance sweatshops Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe

Disclaimer


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: