Hearing cases from bed is a bad idea, says EWCA
The Court of Appeal in London has chastised a judge for hearing an optometrist’s disciplinary hearing from his bed, while he was recovering from surgery.
The Court of Appeal in London has chastised a judge for hearing an optometrist’s disciplinary hearing from his bed, while he was recovering from surgery.
In a ruling on 22 September, Lord Justice Phillips and Lady Justice Falk refused the optometrist permission to appeal a decision refusing to overturn his suspension for serious misconduct involving dishonesty. However, in a postscript they said that Richard Clayton KC – who has issued the appeal decision in the capacity of Deputy High Court Judge – should not have heard the case “whilst encumbered by his injury”.
While ruling it did not cause any arguable case of injustice – and commending Clayton for his willingness and “fortitude” - they said a judge should only ever undertake a hearing in bed as “a last resort”. Even then, they said a judge should never sit if suffering “from illness or infirmity that impairs their ability to hear the matter fairly and properly”.
In this case, they found that there was no urgency for Clayton to hear the appeal.
The optometrist had appealed his ruling on the grounds that there were serious concerns that he had not handled the case to the expected standard. His complaints of procedural irregularity included that Clayton had admitted that the case was not easy and that he was tired, had had difficulties and delays in the production of judgments and orders, and had given the overall appearance that the case was not handled reliably.
Clayton had explained to the parties that he was in bed as he was recovering from surgery on his Achilles tendon, and had cleared the position with senior staff at the Administrative Court. He admitted to difficulties along the way, and delivered the judgment orally before issuing a written version.
The Court of Appeal said there were procedural irregularities in the matter but no arguable case of injustice, as they had only resulted in delay. It said he had fully and carefully considered the optometrist’s appeal, and the optometrist had therefore experienced no prejudice.
In the postscript, Phillips and Falk LJJ also said it would discourage judges from reading out their decisions orally, as it may lead to confusion. They said it was unacceptable that repeated emails from the parties had gone unanswered.