They’re coming for the judges…again.

5 July 2021 by

The offence of “Rechtsbeugung” in German law is not easy to translate. The best match we have for it in English is the offence of “misconduct in public office”. Misfeasance in public office, according to Archibold, is committed by

(a) a public officer acting as such who

(b) wilfully neglects to perform his duty and/or wilfully misconducts himself

(c) to such a degree as to amount to an abuse of the public’s trust in the office holder,

(d) without reasonable justification.

I have not been able to find any examples of judges being prosecuted for misconduct in public office in this country. However, this past fortnight in Germany, no less than eight searches have been carried out in the homes of judges, their expert witnesses, a guardian ad litem and others associated with a controversial ruling regarding Covid-19 restrictions. I posted on Judge Christian Dettmar’s ruling in early April and subsequent investigation here. Reminder: Judge Dettmar issued an injunction against two schools in Weimar to stop them imposing masking, social distancing and testing. This was in his view necessary in order to avert (further) compromising of children’s welfare.

Renewed searches have been carried out in family court Judge Dettmar’s office, home and car. As part of his ruling, Judge Dettmar had relied upon the three experts. All had their homes and offices were searched and their cell phones, computers and various documents were confiscated.

Judge Matthias Guericke, who was not associated with Judge Dettmar’s decision, had also made a decision critical of the measures in Weimar (see my post on that ruling here). On 29 June his laptop and mobile were confiscated by the police and his premises and home searched.

“Rechtsbeugung”

On what basis were these search warrant issued? Judge Dettmar’s defence counsel has provided a press release, in which he explains that this new search on Judge Dettmar was ordered at the request of the local public prosecutor’s office by order of the Erfurt District Court on 22nd June 2021.

As in the previous search on April 26, 2021, his cell phone was again seized (although it had already been mirrored). In addition, his laptop was again confiscated, on which his correspondence with his defence counsel is located. In addition to the search at my client’s home, a search was also ordered and carried out at the home of another fellow judge in Weimar.

What was the legal basis, the alleged offence for which the search warrants were issued? The Erfurt District Court received an allegation of “Rechtsbeugung”, or misconduct in public order, from the Public Prosecutor. That Court backed up its decision that Judge Dettmar had been guilty of misconduct in public office because he wrongly assumed he had competence to hear the application made in April, and, further, that he “had been in contact with third parties in the run-up to his decision” [my italics]. In the court’s view Judge Dettmar laid himself open to that charge by commissioning certain experts to initiate the proceedings. The Erfurt Court suggested that he had used the “alleged risk to the well-being of children” in order to

publicly disseminate his personal attitude and opinion on the protective measures to contain the Corona pandemic.

Legal and Factual Background

Whatever you think of this allegation, it is hard to understand why it has been followed with such invasive police activity. The Federal Administrative Court recently ruled in a case of the a very similar nature to Judge Dettmar’s ruling in April that the family courts do have jurisdiction to consider public measures that affect children, so that Judge Dettmar was right to consider himself competent to hear a mother’s complaint that Coronavirus measures were compromising the welfare of children in Weimar schools. But the Federal Court concluded that the judge should not have carried investigated the claim of endangerment of the welfare of the child because his judicial instruction was directed against a public authority.

This is not entirely straightforward; there are cases in German jurisprudence that have held that instructions against governmental entities in the health care system are permitted by § 1666 of the German Civil Code. That provision suggests that the special protection under which children are subject in accordance with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, to which Germany is signatory, is embodied in the special review and regulatory competence of family judges. Supporters of this argument say that if one were to deny a duty to investigate in these instances, children in state schools would be in a worse position than in private schools. The children would have to defend themselves in protracted administrative court disputes against damaging conditions in the schools. Family judges are not hobbled by so much bureaucracy and therefore constitute a decision making authority which can properly uphold children’s best interests.

There may still be a need for legal clarification here in detail, but there can be no “misconduct in public office” if the judge in question adopts a position that is defensible in law, in the present case this is the paramountcy of a child’s best interests.

According to press coverage of these events, the mother, who had initiated the proceedings in accordance with § 1666 of the German Civil Code (BGB) in the initial case heard by Judge Dettmar in April, has filed an appeal with the Federal Supreme Court (BGH) against the denial of Judge Dettmar’s jurisdiction.

7 comments


  1. Barbara S says:

    from my experience as an unrepresented litigant over 10 years following detriment after public interest disclosure in the NHS, I’d say ‘adversarial system’ is a pretty good translation for ‘Rechtsbeugung’.

  2. I find it most disturbing when it becomes difficult to find cases where “there are so few cases of judicial misconduct. ” As there have been far too many cases of findings against the State in the EU Courts. This infers that judges are not accountable even when misconduct must on some occasion occure. According the the Law everyone is expected to uphold and support the law. Personal Rights are ‘jealously’ guarded by English Law. But who shall guard the guards themselves? Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?.

  3. jake says:

    but you’re happy for the state to cherry pick whenever they like? Professor Meadows being the most notorious examples that comes to mind….? still living in luxury and never prosecuted for all i know, despite all the death and misery he caused by LYING.

  4. englishman1957 says:

    I think I’m right in saying that a number of judges of the Third Reich (particularly Volksgericht judges) were prosecuted for Rechtsbeugung in the early years of the Federal Republic. If Lord Parker CJ was right in saying (in Llewellyn-Jones) of misconduct in public office that ‘It is really impossible to conceive of a case in which action of this sort is not taken with the intention of gaining personal advantage and without regard to the interests of the beneficiary’, that suggests at least some difference between the two concepts. The Volksgericht ‘bent the law’ (beugen = to bend) not for personal advantage but in the interest of a particular political ideology.

  5. tyelko says:

    You keep cherrypicking the courts and decisions you want to pay attention to, and try to apply decisions on issues they are not pertinent to. And you keep ignoring that the “experts” Dettmar cited in his decision weren’t actually experts for the matter at all and their “expert opinion” was in open defiance of the state of science on the matter.

    The Earth doesn’t become flat when a court “decides” it is, and it is utterly laughable to purport to have any interest in child welfare whatsoever while openly condoning fraud and administrative misconduct to the detriment of the safety of children. And it certainly is not “defensible in law” to endanger the health and safety of children and trying to sell it as “the child’s best interest” by deliberately cherrypicking known quacks as “experts”.

  6. At least one judge has been prosecuted for misconduct in a public office in the UK: R v Llewellyn-Jones [1968] 1 QB 429 (CA).

  7. jake says:

    “it is hard to understand why it has been followed with such invasive police activity” seriously? thought it would be pretty obvious by now….same reason that they have done such things to assange, manning, mcneill, snowden and so many others that you would never have heard of…..it’s too intimidate, not just the immediate victim here, it’s more about everybody else who may have a different view to those in power….

    but also

    “…has been binding in Germany since July 15, 2021” are you writing this from the future?

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


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.

Tags


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption ALBA Al Qaeda animal rights 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 Artificial Intelligence Asbestos assisted suicide asylum Australia autism benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery Catholicism Chagos Islanders Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners climate change clinical negligence Coercion common law confidentiality consent conservation constitution contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus costs Court of Protection crime Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation deportation deprivation of liberty Detention disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Family Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage Gaza genetics Germany Google Grenfell Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests international law internet Inuit Iran Iraq Ireland Islam Israel Italy IVF Japan Judaism judicial review jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid Leveson Inquiry LGBTQ Rights liability Libel Liberty Libya Lithuania local authorities marriage mental capacity Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery music Muslim nationality national security NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury Piracy Plagiarism planning Poland Police Politics pollution press Prisoners Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries 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 sexual offence Sikhism Smoking social media South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing statelessness stop and search Strasbourg Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treaty TTIP Turkey UK Ukraine USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wind farms WomenInLaw YearInReview Zimbabwe
%d bloggers like this: