Asked by: Baroness Deech (Crossbench - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Baroness Levitt on 30 June (HL993), what discussions they have had with the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office about (1) the Office's satisfaction that Immigration and Asylum tribunal judges are recusing themselves appropriately in cases where there is a potential conflict of interest, and (2) whether the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office has sufficient information about the interests of those judges that might present conflicts of interest in litigation.
Answered by Baroness Levitt
The Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (JCIO) supports the Lord Chancellor and the Lady Chief Justice in their joint responsibility for judicial discipline. It considers complaints about a judge’s personal conduct in line with statutory regulations, rules and related guidance. The JCIO does not have a role in monitoring or investigating judges’ conduct unless a complaint is made or referred to it. In terms of recusal, it can only consider these if the appeal court has criticised a judge for failure to declare a potential conflict of interest so serious as to raise a question of judicial misconduct.
The Guide to Judicial Conduct contains a core set of principles designed to support all judicial office holders’ conduct and decision-making, including judges in the Immigration and Asylum Chamber of the First-tier Tribunal. The Guide states that: “Judicial office holders must recuse themselves from any case where a fair-minded and informed observer, having considered the facts, would conclude that there was a real possibility that they would be biased.” Responsibility for maintaining and upholding these standards rests with the independent judiciary. It would be inappropriate for the Government to discuss with JCIO what information they should consider in conduct cases.
Asked by: Baroness Deech (Crossbench - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Baroness Levitt on 15 June (HL442), what evidence they have secured that tribunal judges recuse themselves appropriately; and what steps they intend to take to advise parties that they should conduct research into tribunal judges' conflicts of interest which might affect their appearance before them.
Answered by Baroness Levitt
All tribunals judges swear an oath to act impartially. Because recusal in general and the conduct of judges in particular, are matters for the independent judiciary, the Government has not sought to assess recusal in the tribunals. The Government is unable to give legal advice to litigants.
The Judicial Conduct Investigations Office can investigate a potential conflict of interest if, for example, “an appeal court’s criticism of a judicial office holder for failure to declare a potential conflict of interest was so serious as to raise a question of judicial misconduct”. Further information can be found on its website at https://www.complaints.judicialconduct.gov.uk/.
Asked by: Baroness Deech (Crossbench - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask His Majesty's Government following recent accusations of connections between Hamas and staff at the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), whether a tribunal judge's membership of an UNRWA committee could be considered conduct that is capable of compromising judicial independence or propriety, as outlined in the Guide to Judicial Conduct.
Answered by Baroness Levitt
All tribunals judges swear an oath to act impartially. Because recusal in general and the conduct of judges in particular, are matters for the independent judiciary, the Government has not sought to assess recusal in the tribunals. The Government is unable to give legal advice to litigants.
The Judicial Conduct Investigations Office can investigate a potential conflict of interest if, for example, “an appeal court’s criticism of a judicial office holder for failure to declare a potential conflict of interest was so serious as to raise a question of judicial misconduct”. Further information can be found on its website at https://www.complaints.judicialconduct.gov.uk/.
Asked by: Baroness Deech (Crossbench - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Baroness Levitt on 28 May (HL95), how parties to a case would know to approach applications to the court for the recusal of a judge for a real or perceived conflict of interest when judges do not have to declare their interests.
Answered by Baroness Levitt
Our judiciary has a worldwide reputation for conducting cases and making decisions independently, impartially and with integrity. The principles of no one being a judge in their own cause and of justice being not only done but also being seen to be done are long embedded in our justice system. Judges are expected to conduct themselves according to these principles and they must recuse themselves, as the Guide to Judicial Conduct puts it, “from any case where a fair-minded and informed observer, having considered the facts, would conclude that there was a real possibility that they would be biased”.
It is open to parties to seek legal advice about any perceived conflict of interest. It is equally open to unrepresented parties to conduct their own research and to raise any matters before the court. Whether there might be a need to make enquiries and the nature of those enquiries will depend on the issues in the case being litigated.
Asked by: Baroness Deech (Crossbench - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask His Majesty's Government what plans they have to commission a review of the effectiveness of the principle set out in the Guide to Judicial Conduct that tribunal judges should avoid extra-judicial activities that are likely to cause them to refrain from sitting due to perceived or actual conflict of interest; and what assessment they have made of whether tribunal judges do recuse themselves in cases where there is a reasonable perception that they would be biased.
Answered by Baroness Levitt
The conduct of judges is a matter for the independent judiciary. It would therefore not be proper for the Government to require the publication of declarations of interest in relation to any court or type of judge. Doing so would risk undermining judicial independence.
All judges have taken an oath to act impartially. The Guide to Judicial Conduct sets out what this means in practice, stating that “judicial office holders should, so far as is reasonable, avoid extra-judicial activities that are likely to cause them to have to refrain from sitting because of a reasonable apprehension of bias or because of a conflict of interest that would arise from the activity”. The Guide then explains how parties to a case might approach applications to the court for the recusal of a judge because of a real or perceived conflict of interest.
Accordingly, the remit of the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office does not extend to complaints of bias in judicial decision-making. It can, however, investigate types of conduct such as the publication of “content which could damage public confidence in judicial impartiality”.
This means that although there is no register of judges’ interests, there are mechanisms in the court system and through the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office where issues about potential conflicts of interest can be raised.
Asked by: Baroness Deech (Crossbench - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the advantages of ensuring that tribunal judges are subject to transparent and up-to-date declarations of interest comparable to those required of other public office holders and legislators.
Answered by Baroness Levitt
The conduct of judges is a matter for the independent judiciary. It would therefore not be proper for the Government to require the publication of declarations of interest in relation to any court or type of judge. Doing so would risk undermining judicial independence.
All judges have taken an oath to act impartially. The Guide to Judicial Conduct sets out what this means in practice, stating that “judicial office holders should, so far as is reasonable, avoid extra-judicial activities that are likely to cause them to have to refrain from sitting because of a reasonable apprehension of bias or because of a conflict of interest that would arise from the activity”. The Guide then explains how parties to a case might approach applications to the court for the recusal of a judge because of a real or perceived conflict of interest.
Accordingly, the remit of the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office does not extend to complaints of bias in judicial decision-making. It can, however, investigate types of conduct such as the publication of “content which could damage public confidence in judicial impartiality”.
This means that although there is no register of judges’ interests, there are mechanisms in the court system and through the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office where issues about potential conflicts of interest can be raised.
Asked by: Baroness Deech (Crossbench - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether they have identified any risks to public confidence arising from the absence of a mandatory publicly accessible register of interests for tribunal judges.
Answered by Baroness Levitt
The conduct of judges is a matter for the independent judiciary. It would therefore not be proper for the Government to require the publication of declarations of interest in relation to any court or type of judge. Doing so would risk undermining judicial independence.
All judges have taken an oath to act impartially. The Guide to Judicial Conduct sets out what this means in practice, stating that “judicial office holders should, so far as is reasonable, avoid extra-judicial activities that are likely to cause them to have to refrain from sitting because of a reasonable apprehension of bias or because of a conflict of interest that would arise from the activity”. The Guide then explains how parties to a case might approach applications to the court for the recusal of a judge because of a real or perceived conflict of interest.
Accordingly, the remit of the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office does not extend to complaints of bias in judicial decision-making. It can, however, investigate types of conduct such as the publication of “content which could damage public confidence in judicial impartiality”.
This means that although there is no register of judges’ interests, there are mechanisms in the court system and through the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office where issues about potential conflicts of interest can be raised.
Asked by: Baroness Deech (Crossbench - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask His Majesty's Government what is the governance framework that governs conflicts of interest in the tribunal system.
Answered by Baroness Levitt
The conduct of judges is a matter for the independent judiciary. It would therefore not be proper for the Government to require the publication of declarations of interest in relation to any court or type of judge. Doing so would risk undermining judicial independence.
All judges have taken an oath to act impartially. The Guide to Judicial Conduct sets out what this means in practice, stating that “judicial office holders should, so far as is reasonable, avoid extra-judicial activities that are likely to cause them to have to refrain from sitting because of a reasonable apprehension of bias or because of a conflict of interest that would arise from the activity”. The Guide then explains how parties to a case might approach applications to the court for the recusal of a judge because of a real or perceived conflict of interest.
Accordingly, the remit of the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office does not extend to complaints of bias in judicial decision-making. It can, however, investigate types of conduct such as the publication of “content which could damage public confidence in judicial impartiality”.
This means that although there is no register of judges’ interests, there are mechanisms in the court system and through the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office where issues about potential conflicts of interest can be raised.
Asked by: Baroness Deech (Crossbench - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask His Majesty's Government what mechanisms exist to ensure (1) accountability, and (2) effectiveness, of redress for complainants when the investigation carried out by the Judicial Conduct and Ombudsman is significantly delayed or is otherwise regarded as unsatisfactory.
Answered by Baroness Levitt
The Judicial Appointments and Conduct Ombudsman (JACO) is a statutory office holder, supported by the JACO office. It operates independently of the Government in the exercise of its functions. The handling and determination of individual investigations is a matter for JACO. The Ministry of Justice regularly discusses with the JACO office the support it needs to meet its statutory functions.
JACO is accountable to Parliament through the Lord Chancellor, including by publication of an annual report, which provides information about: the enquiries and complaints received; how they are dealt with; and performance against the business objectives. In 2024/25 it reports that compared to 2023/24, it:
JACO acknowledged that there had been a significant increase in its caseload but said that it was taking action to improve its performance and in particular, to reduce the time taken to investigate the oldest cases. JACO does not report on the average time taken to complete an investigation, but the table below includes data from the last five years’ annual reports of how many preliminary investigations were completed within 6 weeks and how many full investigations were completed in less than or over a year:
Workload volumes per year | 20-21 | 21-22 | 22-23 | 23-24 | 24-25 | |
Preliminary Investigations | Reviewed | 235 | 272 | 240 | 292 | 447 |
Concluded | 144 | 192 | 205 | 256 | 424 | |
KPI 90% 6 weeks or less | met | met | met | met | met | |
Full Investigations | Received | 91 | 92 | 36 | 36 | 23 |
Concluded | 76 | 66 | 50 | 39 | 23 | |
12 Months+ | 5 (7%) | 10 (15%) | 30 (60%) | 24 (62%) | 21 (91%) | |
The time taken to investigate complaints depends on several factors, including case complexity, the level of supporting information which is needed from the relevant investigating body and whether the Ombudsman’s findings are referred to the Lord Chancellor and Lady Chief Justice.
JACO is consistent with other Ombudsmen which are responsible for publishing their own timeliness and related targets but do not have statutory performance standards. JACO has an internal complaints handling procedure for complaints about the level of service provided by the Ombudsman’s Office, which can be escalated to the Ombudsman for a final response.
Asked by: Baroness Deech (Crossbench - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask His Majesty's Government what recent discussions they have had with the Judicial Appointments and Conduct Ombudsman regarding steps to improve the efficiency of the office; and what consideration they have given, if any, to introducing statutory performance standards for that office.
Answered by Baroness Levitt
The Judicial Appointments and Conduct Ombudsman (JACO) is a statutory office holder, supported by the JACO office. It operates independently of the Government in the exercise of its functions. The handling and determination of individual investigations is a matter for JACO. The Ministry of Justice regularly discusses with the JACO office the support it needs to meet its statutory functions.
JACO is accountable to Parliament through the Lord Chancellor, including by publication of an annual report, which provides information about: the enquiries and complaints received; how they are dealt with; and performance against the business objectives. In 2024/25 it reports that compared to 2023/24, it:
JACO acknowledged that there had been a significant increase in its caseload but said that it was taking action to improve its performance and in particular, to reduce the time taken to investigate the oldest cases. JACO does not report on the average time taken to complete an investigation, but the table below includes data from the last five years’ annual reports of how many preliminary investigations were completed within 6 weeks and how many full investigations were completed in less than or over a year:
Workload volumes per year | 20-21 | 21-22 | 22-23 | 23-24 | 24-25 | |
Preliminary Investigations | Reviewed | 235 | 272 | 240 | 292 | 447 |
Concluded | 144 | 192 | 205 | 256 | 424 | |
KPI 90% 6 weeks or less | met | met | met | met | met | |
Full Investigations | Received | 91 | 92 | 36 | 36 | 23 |
Concluded | 76 | 66 | 50 | 39 | 23 | |
12 Months+ | 5 (7%) | 10 (15%) | 30 (60%) | 24 (62%) | 21 (91%) | |
The time taken to investigate complaints depends on several factors, including case complexity, the level of supporting information which is needed from the relevant investigating body and whether the Ombudsman’s findings are referred to the Lord Chancellor and Lady Chief Justice.
JACO is consistent with other Ombudsmen which are responsible for publishing their own timeliness and related targets but do not have statutory performance standards. JACO has an internal complaints handling procedure for complaints about the level of service provided by the Ombudsman’s Office, which can be escalated to the Ombudsman for a final response.